Public Document Pack
STRATEGY COMMITTEE
Members of the Strategy Committee are invited to attend this meeting at South Walks House, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1EE to consider the items listed on the following page.
Matt Prosser Chief Executive
Date: Tuesday, 11 September 2018 Time: 2.15 pm Venue: Committee Room A & B - South Walks House Members of Committee: A Alford (Chairman), A Thacker (Vice-Chairman), P Barrowcliff, I Gardner, M Hall, S Hosford, S Jones MBE, M Penfold MBE, J Russell and T Yarker
USEFUL INFORMATION For more information about this agenda please telephone Democratic Services on 01305 252216 or Susan Dallison 01305 252216 [email protected]
This agenda and reports are also available on the Council’s website at www.dorsetforyou.com/committees/ West Dorset District Council.
Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting with the exception of any items listed in the exempt part of this agenda.
Disabled access is available for all of the council’s committee rooms. Hearing loop facilities are available. Please speak to a Democratic Services Officer for assistance in using this facility.
Recording, photographing and using social media at meetings The council is committed to being open and transparent in the way it carries out its business whenever possible. Anyone can film, audio-record, take photographs, and use social media such as tweeting and blogging to report the meeting when it is open to the public, so long as they conform to the Council’s protocol, a copy of which can be obtained from the Democratic Services Team. A G E N D A
Page No.
1 APOLOGIES
To receive apologies for absence.
2 CODE OF CONDUCT
Members are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Code of Conduct regarding disclosable pecuniary and other interests.
Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary or other disclosable interest
Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done within 28 days)
Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item where appropriate. If the interest is non-pecuniary you may be able to stay in the room, take part and vote.
For further advice please contact Stuart Caundle, Monitoring Officer, in advance of the meeting.
3 STRATEGY COMMITTEE FORWARD PLAN 5 - 10
To receive the Forward Plan.
4 SHADOW EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FORWARD PLAN 11 - 20
To receive the Shadow Forward Plan.
5 MINUTES
To confirm the minutes of last meetings. (previously circulated)
6 BUSINESS REVIEW 2018/19 - FOR PERIOD ENDING 30 JUNE 2018 21 - 92 To consider a report of the Financial Performance Manager.
7 TREASURY OUTTURN REPORT 2017/18 93 - 102
To consider a report of the Financial Resources Manager.
8 REVIEW OF COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR 103 - 130 THE PARISH OF BRIDPORT AND NEIGHBOURING PARISHES
To consider a report of the Corporate Manager, Democratic & Electoral Services.
9 ASKERSWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - INDEPENDENT 131 - 178 EXAMINER'S REPORT
To consider a report of the Senior Planning Officer.
10 BEAMINSTER TEMPORARY PARKING CONCESSION 179 - 182
To consider a report of the Parking and Transport Manager.
11 PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIES - NEW REGULATIONS AND COST 183 - 192 RECOVERY OPTIONS
To consider a report of the Environmental Health Manager.
12 URGENT ITEMS
To consider any items of business which the Chair has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to section 100B (4) )b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The reason for the urgency shall be specified in the minutes.
13 EXEMPT BUSINESS
To move the exclusion of the press and the public for the following item in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph of schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).
There are no exempt items to report. This page is intentionally left blank Strategy Committee Four Month Forward plan 1 September 2018 To 31 December 2018
This Plan contains the decisions that the Council intends to make over the next 4 months, but will be subject to review at each committee meeting. The Plan does not allow for items that are unanticipated, which may be considered at short notice. It is available for public inspection along with all reports (unless any report is considered to be exempt or confidential). Copies of committee reports, appendices and background documents will be published on the council’s website Dorsetforyou.com 3 working days before the meeting. hard copies of the papers will be available upon request.
Notice of Intention to hold a meeting in private - Reports to be considered in private are indicated on the Plan as Exempt. Each item in the plan Page 5 Page marked exempt will refer to a paragraph of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 and these are detailed at the end of this document.
Portfolio Holders Partnership & Joint Working – Cllr A Alford Corporate – Cllr P Barrowcliff Community Safety & Access – Cllr A Thacker Environment Protection & Assets – Cllr J Russell Enabling – Cllr M Penfold Equalities – Cllr S Jones Agenda Item 3 Housing – Cllr T Yarker Planning – Cllr I Gardner Sustainability – Cllr M Hall Vulnerable residents – Cllr S Hosford KEY DECISIONS
Title of Report Purpose of Report Consult Exempt Portfolio Holder & Decision Date Committee Report Author
Non Key Decisions
Title of Report Purpose of Report Consult Exempt Portfolio Holder & Decision Date Committee Report Author
Page 6 Page Changes to the parking To outline some minor changes to the WDDC Portfolio Holder 1 Nov 2018 arrangements and charging structure for the Mound car park for Environmental charges in West Bay to support the local users and to restrict Protection and Assets - the use of the Station Yard car park for J Russell overnight parking. Nicola Keyworth-Wright, Parking & Transport Manager Quarter 2 Business To provide the strategic overview of WDDC Portfolio Holder 1 Nov 2018 Review performance, risk, revenue and capital for Corporate - P expenditure and income. Barrowcliff Chris Evans, Financial Performance Manager Annual report for To receive a report of the performance of WDDC Portfolio Holder 1 Nov 2018 Dorchester Sports the sports centre over previous year, an for Enabling - M Penfold centre and update on update of progress with the resolution of Tony Hurley, Leisure the resolution of build building defects and consider any price Commissioning defects changes as proposed. Manager NON KEY DECISIONS
Title of Report Purpose of Report Documents Exempt Portfolio Holder & Decision Date Report Author Quarter 3 Business To provide the strategic overview of WDDC Portfolio Holder 7 Feb 2019 Review Report performance, risk, revenue and capital for Corporate - P expenditure and income. Barrowcliff Chris Evans, Financial Performance Manager Adoption of Dorset To ensure that there is an up-to-date West Dorset WDDC Portfolio Holder 26 Feb 2019 AONB Management management plan for the AONB as District for Planning - I Gardner Plan 2019-2024 required under the Countryside and Council Hilary Jordan, Head of Rights of Way Act. Strategy Planning Community &
Page 7 Page Committee Policy Development 7 Feb 2019 Private meetings
The following paragraphs define the reason why the public may be excluded from meetings whenever it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that exempt information would be disclosed and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it to the public. Each item in the plan above marked Exempt will refer to one of the following paragraphs.
1. Information relating to any individual 2. Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual 3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) 4. Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the authority. Page 8 Page 5. Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings 6. Information which reveal that the authority proposes:- a. To give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or b. To make an order or direction under any enactment 7. Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime. Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank Shadow Dorset Council Shadow Executive Committee - Forward Plan - September 2018
For the period 17 SEPTEMBER 2018 to 31 MARCH 2019 (publication date – 17 AUGUST 2018)
Explanatory Note: This Forward Plan contains future items to be considered by the Shadow Executive Committee. It is published 28 days before the next meeting of the Committee. The plan includes items for the meeting including key decisions. Each item shows if it is ‘open’ to the public or to be considered in a private part of the meeting.
Definition of Key Decisions Key decisions are defined in the Shadow Dorset Council's Constitution as decisions of the Shadow Executive Committee which are likely to - (a) to result in the relevant local authority incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the relevant local authority’s budget for the service or function to which the decision relates (Thresholds - Dorset County Council £500k and District and Borough Councils £100k); or (b) to be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards or electoral divisions in the area of
Page 11 Page the relevant local authority.” In determining the meaning of “significant” for these purposes the Shadow Council will have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 9Q of the Local Government Act 2000 Act. Officers will consult with lead members to determine significance and sensitivity.
Private/Exempt Items for Decision Each item in the plan above marked as ‘private’ will refer to one of the following paragraphs.
1. Information relating to any individual. 2. Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.
3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). Agenda Item 4 4. Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the authority. 5. Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. 6. Information which reveals that the shadow council proposes:- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment. 7. Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.
1 Subject / Decision Decision Maker Decision Due Consultation Background Member / Date documents Officer Contact Programme Highlight Report Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Leader of Committee Members Shadow Dorset Council Key Decision - No Services Public Access - Open Lead officer - Keith Means of Consultation: Cheesman, LGR Task and Finish Groups Programme Director Workshops keith.cheesman@dorsetcc. Ongoing programme activity gov.uk
Forward Plan/Work Programme Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Leader of Committee Shadow Executive Committee Shadow Dorset Council Key Decision - No Dorset councils Public Access - Open Programme Board Lead officer - Lee Gallagher, Democratic Means of Consultation: Services Manager Page 12 Page Meetings [email protected]. uk
Response to Technical Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Consultation on the 2019/20 Local Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari Government Finance Settlement Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Key Decision - No Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section Public Access - Open 151 Officer
Local Council Tax Support Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Scheme Committee Dorset Finance Officers Tony Ferrari LGR Programme Board Key Decision - Yes Lead officer - Jason Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Vaughan, Interim Section Meetings 151 Officer
Business Rates Pilots Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari Key Decision - No Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer
2 Grants to the Voluntary and Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: Schedule of grants Lead member - Councillor Community Sector Committee Relevant portfolio holders of each provided by Dorset Sherry Jespersen of the Dorset councils area councils Key Decision - Yes Relevant budget holding officers Lead officer - Steve Public Access - Open Budget Task and Finish Group Mackenzie, Chief Executive - Purbeck District Council Means of Consultation: stevemackenzie@purbeck- Meetings and circulation of the draft dc.gov.uk committee report Discussion at Budget Task and Finish Group
Revenues and Benefits Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Partnership Working Committee None Tony Ferrari
Key Decision - Yes Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Keith Public Access - Open None Cheesman, LGR Programme Director keith.cheesman@dorsetcc.
Page 13 Page gov.uk
Future Operation of Leisure Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Facilities in Dorset Committee None Mary Penfold
Key Decision - Yes Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Rebecca Kirk, Public Access - Open None General Manager, Public Health and Housing - Purbeck District Council
Dorset Council Branding Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Wider Member Engagement Task Rebecca Knox, Councillor Key Decision - Yes and Finish Group Gary Suttle Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Keith Meetings Cheesman, LGR Programme Director keith.cheesman@dorsetcc. gov.uk
West Dorset - service/asset Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: West Dorset Lead member - Councillor
3 transfers to local councils Committee West Dorset Town and Parish District Council Anthony Alford Councils Strategy Key Decision - Yes Committee report - Lead officer - Stephen Hill, Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: 12 September Strategic Director, Dorset West Dorset Programme Board 2017 and 14 Councils Partnership (meetings with West Dorset Mayors December 2017 [email protected] (Decision referred from West & Town Clerks and WDDC Officers) Draft report to Dorset District Council) West Dorset Town and Parish WDDC Strategy Council survey Committee - 20 West Dorset Town and Parish August 2018 Councils Clerk and Chairman West Dorset Devolution Meeting on 2 May 2018 Programme Board minutes
Funding for Highway Maintenance Shadow Executive 17 Sep 2018 Consultees: Policy Lead member - Councillor - 2019/20 Committee Policy Development Panel on Development Panel Daryl Turner Highway Maintenance convened by Report Key Decision - Yes the Economic Growth Overview and Lead officer - Andrew Public Access - Fully exempt Scrutiny Committee at Dorset County Martin, Service Director, Page 14 Page Council Highways and Emergency Planning - DCC (Decision referred from Dorset Means of Consultation: [email protected] County Council) Policy Development Panel Meetings
Dorset Waste Partnership Vehicle Shadow Executive 15 Oct 2018 Consultees: Dorset Waste Lead member - Councillor Procurement Programme Committee Dorset Budget Task and Finish Partnership Anthony Alford Group Transport Strategy Key Decision - Yes Bournemouth, Christchurch and Capital Programme Lead officer - Karyn Public Access - Open Poole (BCP) Place Group 2016/17 - 2020/21 Punchard, Director of the Dorset Programme Board Vehicle Dorset Waste Partnership BCP Programme Board Procurement [email protected] Programme k Means of Consultation: Reports and Meetings
Dorset Waste Partnership Shadow Executive 15 Oct 2018 Consultees: Waste and Lead member - Councillor
4 arrangements - Delegation of Committee Shaping Dorset Place Board cleansing Anthony Alford Waste Function for Christchurch Bournemouth, Christchurch and disaggregation Poole (BCP) Place Board template Lead officer - Karyn Key Decision - Yes Dorset Programme Board Punchard, Director of the Public Access - Open BCP Programme Board Dorset Waste Partnership [email protected] Means of Consultation: k Reports and discussions
Budget 2019/20 and Medium Term Shadow Executive 15 Oct 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Financial Forecast - Update and Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari Consultation Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Key Decision - Yes Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section Public Access - Open 151 Officer
Future of Local Plans in Dorset - Shadow Executive 15 Oct 2018 Consultees: Adopted Lead member - Councillor the Shadow Council's position Committee Planning policy managers, directors emergency local David Walsh and interim arrangements for the and portfolio holder councillors plans for Page 15 Page new Dorset Council district/borough Lead officer - Hilary Jordan, Means of Consultation: councils Corporate Manager - Key Decision - No Strategic Planning Forum (member Dorset-wide Planning (Community and Public Access - Open level) and officer Strategic Planning minerals and waste Policy Development) Policy Managers’ Forum plans [email protected] Local Development Schemes for each plan area
Home to School Transport and Shadow Executive 12 Nov 2018 Consultees: Home to School Lead member - Councillor Post 16 Transport Assistance Committee All Schools, neighbouring local Transport Daryl Turner policy 2019/20 authorities, all town and parish Assistance councils, all County Council Eligibility Policy for Lead officer - Debbie Ward, Key Decision - Yes members, parents and carers Children and Chief Executive - Dorset Public Access - Open Young People County Council Means of Consultation: Attending School [email protected] Email to stakeholders; all 2019/20 (Decision referred from Dorset district/town/parishes; members; all Dorset Post 16 County Council) schools Transport Support Information on County Council Policy 2019/20 Admissions webpages
Disaggregation Update Shadow Executive 12 Nov 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor
5 Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari Key Decision - No Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer
Electoral Arrangements and Shadow Executive 12 Nov 2018 Consultees: Election Project Lead member - Councillor Councillor Induction 2019 Committee Dorset Electoral Administrators Plan Spencer Flower Group Key Decision - Yes Lead officer - Jonathan Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Mair, Interim Monitoring Meetings Officer [email protected]
Policy Framework Shadow Executive 12 Nov 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Governance Task and Finish Group Spencer Flower Key Decision - Yes 20 Feb 2019 Dorset Monitoring Officers Group Public Access - Open Shadow Dorset Lead officer - Matt Prosser,
Page 16 Page Council Means of Consultation: Interim Head of Paid Meetings Service [email protected]
Making of Consequential Order Shadow Executive 10 Dec 2018 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor relating to Civic Functions Committee Governance Task and Finish Group Spencer Flower Monitoring Officers Group Key Decision - Yes Lead officer - Jonathan Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Mair, Interim Monitoring Meetings Officer [email protected]
Budget 2019/20 and Medium Term Shadow Executive 7 Jan 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Financial Forecast - Update Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari
Key Decision - No Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Public Access - Open Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer
Council Tax Discounts, Long Term Shadow Executive 7 Jan 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor
6 Empty Charges Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari
Key Decision - Yes Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Public Access - Open Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer
Business Rates Relief Shadow Executive 7 Jan 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari Key Decision - Yes Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer
Insurance Arrangements Shadow Executive 7 Jan 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari Key Decision - Yes Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer Page 17 Page
Constitution - Dorset Council Shadow Executive 14 Jan 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Governance Task and Finish Group Spencer Flower Key Decision - Yes Monitoring Officers Group Public Access - Open Shadow Dorset 20 Feb 2019 Lead officer - Jonathan Council Means of Consultation: Mair, Interim Monitoring Meetings Officer [email protected]
Members Allowances Scheme Shadow Executive 14 Jan 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor 2019/2020 Committee Independent Remuneration Panel Spencer Flower Governance Task and Finish Group Key Decision - Yes Monitoring Officers Group Lead officer - Jonathan Public Access - Open Mair, Interim Monitoring Means of Consultation: Officer Meetings [email protected]
Transition Period Plan (operating Shadow Executive 14 Jan 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Leader of
7 arrangements and interim Committee Governance Task and Finish Group Shadow Dorset Council transition) Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Keith Key Decision - Yes Meetings Cheesman, LGR Public Access - Open Programme Director keith.cheesman@dorsetcc. gov.uk
Legal and Democratic Operating Shadow Executive 14 Jan 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Model Committee Governance Task and Finish Group Spencer Flower Monitoring Officers Group Key Decision - Yes Lead officer - Jonathan Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Mair, Interim Monitoring Meetings Officer [email protected]
Corporate Plan Shadow Executive 11 Feb 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Leader of Committee None Shadow Dorset Council
Page 18 Page Key Decision - Yes Public Access - Open Shadow Dorset 20 Feb 2019 Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Matt Prosser, Council None Interim Head of Paid Service [email protected]
2019/2020 Budget Shadow Executive 11 Feb 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Public and Business Sector Tony Ferrari Key Decision - Yes Councillors Public Access - Open Shadow Dorset 20 Feb 2019 Budget Task and Finish Group Lead officer - Jason Council Dorset Finance Officers Group Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer Means of Consultation: Meetings Public and Business Sector Consultation
Capital Strategy Shadow Executive 11 Feb 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari Key Decision - Yes Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer
8 Treasury Management Strategy Shadow Executive 11 Feb 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari Key Decision - Yes Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer
Local Council Tax Support Shadow Executive 11 Feb 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Scheme Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari
Key Decision - Yes Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Public Access - Open Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section 151 Officer
Financial Regulations Shadow Executive 11 Feb 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Councillor Committee Budget Task and Finish Group Tony Ferrari Key Decision - Yes Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Jason Meetings Vaughan, Interim Section
Page 19 Page 151 Officer
Weymouth Town Council Shadow Executive 11 Mar 2019 Consultees: None Lead member - Leader of Committee None Shadow Dorset Council Key Decision - Yes Public Access - Open Means of Consultation: Lead officer - Keith None Cheesman, LGR Programme Director keith.cheesman@dorsetcc. gov.uk
9 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
Strategy Committee 11th September 2018 Business Review 2018/19 – For period ending 30th June 2018 For Decision
Portfolio holder Corporate – Cllr Peter Barrowcliff
Senior Leadership Team Contact: J Vaughan, Strategic Director
Report Author: Christian Evans – Financial Performance Manager
Statutory Authority
Members have a responsibility under the Local Government Act to regularly review the Council’s financial position and this report fulfils this requirement.
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To set out the Council’s performance across all services. This is broken down into financial performance, key performance indicators, service plans and risks on a service by service basis.
2. Officer Recommendations
That members:-
2.1 a) Note the predicted outturn for the 2018/19 revenue and capital budgets. b) Note the KPI’s for each service for the period and any actions being taken. c) Note the Service Plan updates provided by Heads of Service / Corporate Managers. d) Note the high risks for each service area and any actions being taken.
3. Reason for Decision
3.1 The report is the key accountability tool for the performance of all the Council services. The report contains the strategic position of the Council’s finances combined with performance statistics and service risks.
Page 21 4. Background and Reason Decision Needed
4.1 This report is considered by this Committee as they have the delegated responsibility in the Constitution from Full Council to monitor the budget. The Joint Advisory Scrutiny Committee will also consider the report and will identify any areas that they wish to scrutinise in more detail.
4.2 The budgets shown in Appendix 1 are ‘controllable costs’. This is expenditure / income where the Head of Service / Corporate Manager has influence. Capital charges (depreciation) and service recharges are not shown. The budget holder has then made an assessment of the likely outturn for the financial year, which has been compared to the budget to identify any potential outturn variances. If there is a projected variance, then the budget holder has to provide a comment explaining the reason and outline what corrective action is being taken.
4.3 Key Performance Indicators are measures of service performance that are monitored. They have been developed by each Head of Service / Corporate Manager in conjunction with relevant Briefholders / Portfolio holders and are standard across all three councils.
4.4 Each service maintains a service risk register and the summary of the number of risks in each category is included within the report. Where a risk is scored as high or very high, the full details of the risk and mitigating actions are detailed.
5. Report
5.1 The predicted year end outturn on the revenue budget monitoring report is estimated to show a £230,036 favourable variance. This is a total variance of 2.4% against the 2018/19 budget requirement of £9,512,417.
5.2 Heads of Service / Corporate Managers produce a Service Plan every year for each of the 12 services. In Appendix 2 Managers have provided an update of achievements so far this year, as well as actions still to be completed.
Key Revenue / Performance issues to date
The recent good weather has resulted in the increase in predicted year end car parking income. The average days to process land charge a search is currently 7 days with a target of 15, which is positive news. Response times for corporate complaints continue to be an issue. Car parking, percentage of informal penalty charge notices responded to within 10 working days is currently not meeting the target.
Current / future issues
Affordable Housing – The annual 2018/19 target of between 70-100 homes delivered is likely to be met, which is very positive news. West Dorset District Council does not quite meet the 5 year target for supply of housing. It currentlyPage shows 4.9422 years. Where there is no five- year housing land supply, relevant local plan policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date, so cannot be given as much weight in decisions.
Capital
5.3 The predicted overall scheme variance showing on the Capital Budget Monitoring appendix 3 on budget against a total scheme budget of £17,894,984.
Key Capital project issues
The study into the Dorchester Retail Scheme continues. Soft market testing is being undertaken. The considerable Lyme Regis Phase 4 project is likely to be within the WDDC budget which is a considerable achievement. The final DCC contribution and final EA grant totals are in the process of being agreed.
6. Corporate Plan
6.1 The service performance and targets reflects the current Corporate Plan.
7. Financial Implications
7.1 These are predictions based on the information available at 30th June 2018. Any variance at the end of the financial year will impact upon the level of General Reserves.
8. Risk Management (including Health & Safety)
8.1 High and very high risks are reported in detail in Appendix 2. Service risk registers can be found in the Councils performance system (QPR).
8.2 There is a risk the Council will overspend its budget for the year.
9. Appendices
9.1 Appendix 1 – Graph showing the predicted revenue outturn position of the 12 services with overall commentary Appendix 2 – Overall service reviews of the performance, service plan update & risk Appendix 3 – Capital budget monitoring Appendix 4 – Treasury management update
Page 23 10. Background Papers
10.1 The Council’s financial information system
10.2 The Council’s corporate performance system (QPR)
11. Footnote
11.1 Issues relating to financial, environmental, economic and equalities implications have been considered and any information relevant to the decision is included within the report.
Report Author: Christian Evans – Financial Performance Manager Telephone: 01305 838312 Email: [email protected]
Page 24 WDDC Budget Monitoring - Quarter 1 2018/19 Appendix 1
Variances (£,000)
(Adverse) Favourable (50) 0 50 100 150 200 250
Financial Services 0
Corporate Finance 0
Revenues & Benefits 0
Business Improvement 22
Community Protection 0
Housing 0
Planning Development Mgt & Building Control (25) Page 25 Page Community & Policy Development 7
Economy, Leisure & Tourism 30
Assets & Infrastructure 200
Democratic Services & Elections (4)
HR & OD 0
Legal Services 0
General Fund Net Total 230 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19 Business Review West Dorset District Council
Period: Quarter One (1st April to 30th June 2018)
Head of Service/ Service Prediction (£) Corporate Manager Financial Services 0 Julie Strange
Corporate Finance 0 Julie Strange
Revenues & Benefits 0 Stuart Dawson
Business Improvement 22,000(F) Penny Mell
Community Protection 0 Graham Duggan
Housing 0 Clive Milone
Planning Development Management & 25,000(A) Jean Marshall Building Control
Community & Policy Development 7,226(F) Hilary Jordan
Economy, Leisure & Tourism 29,500(F) Nick Thornley
Assets & Infrastructure 200,000(F) Sarah Cairns
Democratic Services & Elections 3,690(A) Jacqui Andrews
Human Resources & Organisational 0 Bobbie Bragg Development
Legal Services 0 Robert Firth
Overall predicted variance £230,036 (F)
(F) = Favourable variance prediction (A) = Adverse variance prediction
Page 27
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Financial Services Head of Service – Julie Strange
(Accountancy, Audit, Exchequer, Corporate Planning & Performance, Corporate Procurement, Risk Management and Insurance)
Lead Portfolio Holder – Cllr Peter Barrowcliff (Corporate)
Revenue summary – Financial Services
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 509,987 Budget is currently on track Supplies & Services 2,257 Transport 182,400 Net expenditure 694,644 Q1 Predicted variance 0
Revenue summary – Corporate Finance
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / action Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 1,207,662 Budget is currently on track. Additional Housing Grants Transport (39,416) received will be required to support additional costs relating to the Homeless Reduction Act. Premises 2,090 Supplies & Services 722,599 Payments to Clients 19,449 Interest (692,316) Income (91,180) Grants (10,913,914) Net expenditure (9,785,026) Q1 Predicted variance 0
Page 28
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
Following the recent work which the creditors team have undertaken with services, it is pleasing to see that all three councils have achieved payment of invoices within 30 days in excess of the 95% target for the first time.
The number of non-disputed invoices paid within 5 days during quarter 1 was:: NDDC 34%, WDDC 54%, WPBC 51%
Percentage of creditor payments by BACS Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 99% 100% 100% Q1 2018/19 Target 95% 95% 95% FY 2018/19 Target 95% 95% 95% FY 2017/18 Actual 98.25% 99.96% 99.83%
Page 29
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of non-disputed invoices paid within 30 calendar days (creditor payments) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Building a Stronger Local Economy Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 97% 97% 98% Q1 2018/19 Target 95% 95% 95% FY 2018/19 Target 95% 95% 95% FY 2017/18 Actual 94.97% 94.21% 94.57%
Overall General Fund predicted variances per Quarter (Favourable/Adverse) Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual £ 26,275(A) £ 230,036(F) £ 64,246(F)
Service Plan Update
A Stronger Local Economy The focussed work to improve the payment of invoices within 30 days has delivered improvements to the performance.
Actions outside of Corporate Plan
Core financial processes are underway with the closedown of the 2017/18 accounts substantially complete. We are just undertaking the final audit signoff which will be reported to Sovereign Audit Committees in July.
Key risk areas
8 Service operational risks have been identified for Financial Services:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 0 Medium Risks 2 Low Risks 6
Page 30
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Revenues & Benefits Head of Service – Stuart Dawson
(Council Tax, Business Rates, Housing Benefit, Fraud)
Lead Portfolio Holder – Cllr Peter Barrowcliff (Corporate)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 1,396,170 Local Taxation - No significant variance expected at year end. Transport 13,419 Costs raised are generally lower in quarter 1 but increase as the courts are booked later in the year. Supplies & Services 394,055 Payments to clients 30,750,000 Housing Benefits Administration - No variance expected, Income (32,020,460) Income should match the budget at year end as HB admin Net expenditure 533,184 subsidy is known in advance. Q1 Predicted variance 0 Rent Allowances - No material variances to report - expected that Year End actuals to be broadly in line with budget.
R & B Partnership No variance expected, the Revenues and Benefits partnership is funded by the three partner councils.
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
North Dorset (SVPP) Quarter 1 processing is within target for new claims, changes in circumstances and collection. Changes in SVPP are automated where possible. Face to face contact has reduced and on-line access increased since opening of new office and appointment services.
WDDC and WPBC
Benefits and Council Tax performance in line with targets.
More and more businesses are now spreading payment of their business rates over 12 months. This has impacted on our collection in Q1 for WDDC. We are investigating whether there are any other factors that have affected collection performance and will take appropriate action, as required, to address any issues.
Page 31
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Average calendar days to process new housing benefit claims Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 18 days 18 days 17 days Q1 2018/19 Target 19 days 19 days 19 days FY 2018/19 Target 19 days 19 days 19 days FY 2017/18 Actual 18.90 days 21.84 days 19.73 days
Average calendar days to process housing benefit changes of circumstances Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 8 days 7 days 6 days Q1 2018/19 Target 10 days 7 days 7 days FY 2018/19 Target 10 days 7 days 7 days FY 2017/18 Actual 5.65 days 4.53 days 5.30 days
Page 32
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Number of Housing Benefit New Claims and Changes Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 4,030 3,024 3,368 Q4 2017/18 Actual 5,565 10,486 7,114 Q3 2017/18 Actual 3,568 2,743 3,086 Q2 2017/18 Actual 4,162 3,202 3,431 Q1 2017/18 Actual 5,095 4,136 5,605 Q4 2016/17 Actual 6,478 8,551 8,945 Q3 2016/17 Actual 3,606 2,834 3,396 Q2 2016/17 Actual 4,508 4,047 4,714 Q1 2016/17 Actual 4,695 4,770 5,420
Percentage of Council Tax collected (cumulative) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 29.39% 30.54% 29.25% Q1 2018/19 Target 30% 30% 29% FY 2018/19 Target 98% 98% 96% FY 2017/18 Actual 98.00% 98.05% 96.30%
Page 33
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of Business Rates collected (cumulative) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 32.18% 30.14% 31.25% Q1 2018/19 Target 34% 32% 28% FY 2018/19 Target 99% 97% 96% FY 2017/18 Actual 99.00% 97.43% 96.48%
Service Plan Update
A Stronger Local Economy
• Provided additional support, through the award of discretionary rate relief, to those businesses who were faced with large rates increases caused by the national rates revaluation in 2017 • Ongoing review of information leaflets. Updated leaflets are edited to PEC standards (excludes NDDC as dealt with by SVPP). • Supporting customers who are affected by the introduction of Universal Credit (funded Advisor posts with CAB designed to assist customers through the claim process). • Continue to improve e-access to services (e.g. e-billing take up, txt messaging, etc.).
Improving Quality of Life
• Ongoing review of information leaflets. Updated leaflets are edited to PEC standards (excludes NDDC as dealt with by SVPP). • Supporting customers who are affected by the introduction of Universal Credit (funded Advisor posts with CAB designed to assist customers through the claim process). • Continue to improve e-access to services (e.g. e-billing take up, txt messaging, etc.).
Actions outside of Corporate Plan
• Service was successful in achieving the Investors in People Silver level award in March 2018 • Action to achieve efficiency savings is ongoing
Page 34
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key risk areas
7 Service operational risks have been identified for Revenues & Benefits:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 0 Medium Risks 1 Low Risks 6
Page 35
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Business Improvement Head of Service – Penny Mell
(Change Management implementation, Business Transformation, Customer Services, Communications, dorsetforyou.com, Graphic design & Printing, Consultation, IT Support, IT Development)
Lead Portfolio Holder – Cllr Peter Barrowcliff (Corporate)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 1,174,920 Communications - The current underspend is due to staff Premises 34,410 vacancies including the secondment of the Communications and Customer Experience Manager to Shaping Dorset Transport 4,730 Council. Supplies & Services 878,222 Income (423,523) IT - Work continues on key projects including: Shaping Dorset Net expenditure 1,668,759 Council; collaborative working and Information Governance. Q1 Predicted variance 22,000(F) Approval has been granted to bring in additional resources to assist across IT including Service desk, Infrastructure and Information Management to assist with this. This will be funded from the under spend within the salary budget; therefore this will impact the variance throughout the year. This will be monitored.
Business Transformation and Dorsetforyou variance is largely due to project funding which is reconciled at the end of the financial year and therefore the variance is in line with expectations.
Customer Access Team - The current underspend is due to staff vacancies. Whilst the Team Leader has managed to fill
Page 36
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
The Customer Access Team have experienced a high degree of staff turnover over in the previous quarter, with experienced team members moving onto new opportunities. This, together with high demand, has had a significant impact on performance. In Q1 of this year, 2xFTE members of staff have joined the service together with a new Apprentice. A further 2xFTE will be joining the Team in July. A fixed term member of staff will also be joining the Team to help manage demand over the coming months e.g. electoral canvassing.
Complaints
The Customer Access Team has responsibility to co-ordinate complaint handling across the Partnership and continues to work to support services in responding to complaints as they arise. Performance in Q1 is off target disappointing having seen an improvement in Q3&4 of last year, however, Q1 has been a particularly busy period for all services and this has probably had an impact on performance. It should also be noted that in some instances complaints are closed only 1 or 2 days late. Officers will be encouraged to record the complaint as closed as soon as possible.
Number of phone calls received by Customer Services
Dorset Councils Partnership (DCP) Q1 2018/19 Actual 24,136 Q4 2017/18 Actual 23,062 Q3 2017/18 Actual 22,708 Q2 2017/18 Actual 25,501 Q1 2017/18 Actual 25,351 Q4 2016/17 Actual 20,995 Q3 2016/17 Actual 19,464 Q2 2016/17 Actual 24,797 Q1 2016/17 Actual 29,509
Page 37
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of telephone calls answered by a Customer Services Advisor Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority DCP Combined Q1 2018/19 Actual 81% Q1 2018/19 Target 90% FY 2018/19 Target 90% FY 2017/18 Actual DCP N/A (see ‘FY 2017/18 Actual’ split by council below) North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland FY 2017/18 Actual 94% 93% 91%
The average speed that a call was answered in the quarter was 1 minute 37 seconds. Percentage of telephone calls abandoned Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority DCP Combined Q1 2018/19 Actual 19% Q1 2018/19 Target 10% FY 2018/19 Target 10% FY 2017/18 Actual DCP N/A (see ‘FY 2017/18 Actual’ split by council below) North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland FY 2017/18 Actual 6% 7% 9%
The average abandoned time in the quarter was 3 minutes 05 seconds. Page 38
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of corporate complaints dealt with within corporate target (Stage One: 10 working days, Stage Two: 15 working days) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 58% 67% 71% Q1 2018/19 Target 80% 80% 80% FY 2018/19 Target 80% 80% 80% FY 2017/18 Actual 79% 76% 75%
Quarter 1 complaints base data:
North Dorset 16 items of feedback were received in Q1 3 were giving an opinion or feedback 1 was making a suggestions or improvement 12 were making a complaint. 7 of these were dealt with within the corporate time frame. Of the 12 complaints, 1 progressed to stage 2 and included a further investigation.
West Dorset 36 items of feedback were received in Q1 3 were giving an opinion or feedback 6 were making a suggestion on or improvement 6 were complimenting the Council or a Council employee 21 were making a complaint. 14 were dealt with within the corporate time frame. Of the 21 complaints 2 progressed to stage2
Weymouth & Portland 30 items of feedback were received in Q1 1 was giving an opinion or feedback 7 were making a suggestion or improvement 5 were complimenting the Council or a Council employee 17 were making a complaint. 12 were dealt with within the corporate time frame Of the 17 complaints 1 progressed to stage 2. Page 39
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Service Plan Update
Developing Successful Partnerships
Business Improvement has continued to deliver a number of key priorities this quarter.
Digital transformation. The Business Transformation Team has recently finished the development of the Partnership’s Digital Strategy. The Strategy will guide the digital work of the Partnership over the next 12-18 months including the Digital Ideas Campaign and continuing to digitalise access to services were appropriate. The next 12 months will see an increasing focus on digital skills, building on our work in the previous quarter.
Dorset For You. The Dorset For You Team has now completed its work to redesign the Dorset For You website. The website now uses new technology and the Team have adopted the GDS Design Principles when redesigning the content of the website. The Team have also significantly reduced the number of pages helping to make it easier to navigate. The Team will continue to focus on making improvements to the website over the coming weeks.
Customer access – a key focus for the Customer Access Team has been on recruitment this quarter as we continue to experience turnover within the Team. We have been pleased to welcome 2 new Customer Service and Digital Access Advisors and a new Apprentice to the Team. A further 2 Advisors will be starting in July together with a fixed term member of staff to help meet demand over the summer period. Preparatory work has begun with the Elections, Communications and Dorsetforyou Team to proactively support customers through Election Canvassing, with a focus on digital options. The Customer Access Team has also been working with members of the Business Transformation Team and Housing to collectively address the needs of our Housing customers and the next stage looks to implement some new solutions to assist the current volume of contact.
IT – The IT Team have continued their work to raise awareness of information security matters across the Partnership and have worked with colleagues and partners to continue to roll out WIFI. The Team continue their work to roll out O365 to ensure the best opportunities for colleagues to collaborate particularly across organisations as we come together under Shaping Dorset Council. Our Information Services Team are pleased to announce that GoePlace have confirmed that they continue to maintain their Gold Standard for the Address Gazetteer for the majority of the data held within the Partnership and the Team continue to work on bringing all data up to the same standard.
Communications – the Team continues to flex to meet the changing priorities of services across the Partnership and our role within Shaping Dorset Council. The Team are currently supporting a number of services and associated campaigns including: the Opening Doors Programme and Health Walks Campaign. Our designers continue to support a number of work areas including Nothe Garden Signage and displays for Radipole Gardens Lottery Fund.
Future Issues
The Team will continue to focus on the key issues of Information Governance (GDPR) and supporting the work of Shaping Dorset Council.
Page 40
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key risk areas
9 Service operational risks have been identified for Business Improvement:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 0 Medium Risks 7 Low Risks 2
Page 41
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Community Protection Head of Service – Graham Duggan
(Environmental Health, Licensing, Community Safety, CCTV, Parks & Open Spaces, Bereavement Services, Waste & Cleansing – Client role)
Lead Portfolio Holders – Cllr Alan Thacker (Community Safety & Access), Cllr Tony Alford (Partnership & Joint Working)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 748,501 Budgets on track. Limited salary underspend due to vacant Premises 4,745 posts which are now resolved. Small underspend on waste and cleansing which will be utilised for additional street Transport 18,863 cleansing in the summer Supplies & Services 3,164,956 Payments to clients 4,585 Income (257,879) Net expenditure 3,683,771 Q1 Predicted variance 0
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
Food Safety Following the service re-structure, staff vacancies have been recruited to and the food premises inspection programme is back on track. The general standard of food hygiene in premises remains high with a focus on poor performers.
Environmental Protection The private water supply (PWS) inspection programme is behind target. However, staff vacancies have now been recruited to and a specialist contractor is also providing support. This is being managed within existing budget. Portfolio/Briefholders are being consulted on changes to PWS regulations which may significantly increase costs to supply owners.
Dorset Waste Partnership Please note that data is for Q4. This was an unusual quarter due to very adverse weather conditions which affected waste arisings and performance. Performance dipped and there continues to be significant difference between council areas. Some of this difference can be explained by geographical; population and socio-economic factors. A DWP officer will be available to respond to any detailed questions. DWP continues to be a nationally top performing waste and recycling partnership.
Page 42
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of catering premises achieving high levels of food hygiene (rated 4 or 5) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Building a Stronger Local Economy Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 94% 98% 96% Q1 2018/19 Target 90% 90% 90% FY 2018/19 Target 90% 90% 90% FY 2017/18 Actual 93.2% 96.9% 96.0%
Percentage of Environmental Protection service requests responded to within 3 working days Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Improving Quality of Life Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 99% 100% 99% Q1 2018/19 Target 95% 95% 95% FY 2018/19 Target 95% 95% 95% FY 2017/18 Actual 98% 96% 93%
Page 43
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Kilograms of household waste (landfill and recycling) collected per household (cumulative) Corporate Plan Priority: Improving Quality of Life Aim Latest available data is year end outturn 2017/18 Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland FY 2017/18 Actual 705 Kg/hh 570 Kg/hh 651 Kg/hh FY 2017/18 Target 627 Kg/hh 627 Kg/hh 627 Kg/hh FY 2016/17 Actual 702 Kg/hh 627 Kg/hh 639 Kg/hh
Kilograms of residual (landfill) household waste per household (cumulative) Corporate Plan Priority: Improving Quality of Life Aim Latest available data is year end outturn 2017/18 Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland FY 2017/18 Actual 286 Kg/hh 179 Kg/hh 291 Kg/hh FY 2017/18 Target 263 Kg/hh 263 Kg/hh 263 Kg/hh FY 2016/17 Actual 283 Kg/hh 263 Kg/hh 301 Kg/hh
Page 44
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of household waste sent to re-use, recycling and composting Corporate Plan Priority: Improving Quality of Life Aim Latest available data is year end outturn 2017/18 Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland FY 2017/18 Actual 55% 67% 54% FY 2017/18 Target 60% 60% 60% FY 2016/17 Actual 58% 67% 53%
Number of (justified) missed household waste collections (absolute number) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Improving Quality of Life Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 1,384 790 835 Q4 2017/18 Actual 1,190 801 865 Q3 2017/18 Actual 918 672 936 Q2 2017/18 Actual 968 667 1,152 Q1 2017/18 Actual 926 733 856 Q4 2016/17 Actual 1,090 873 963 Q3 2016/17 Actual 911 789 1,120 Q2 2016/17 Actual 916 1,058 1,406 Q1 2016/17 Actual 750 1,076 1,216 Q4 2015/16 Actual 642 1,208 1,485 Q3 2015/16 Actual 579 1,660 1,517 Q2 2015/16 Actual 548 992 3,240
Justified missed bin collections as a proportion of all collections – Q1 2018/19 Corporate Plan Priority: Improving Quality of Life Authority Number of Justified missed Total Collections Percentage of missed household waste collections collections North Dorset 1,384 1,109,193 0.12% West Dorset 790 1,613,862 0.05% Weymouth & Portland 835 1,156,883 0.07% Page 45
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Service Plan Update
A Stronger Local Economy New DCP Licensing Policy is being developed which will help businesses navigate this complex regulatory area and resolve inconsistencies between our councils. At the same time, licensing IT is being consolidated into one system to gain efficiencies and improve our response to business customers. Purple Flag accreditation for Weymouth is now being led by the Town Centre Manager in conjunction with the Night-time Economy Group. Application submitted in June 2018.
Thriving and Inclusive Communities The Melcombe Regis Board has progressed work to introduce a selective licensing scheme for the private rented sector which if approved, will bring benefits to tenants and landlords alike and improve community cohesion. A Community Safety Accreditation Scheme has been launched in Weymouth town centre providing uniformed officers with some police and council powers to tackle ASB. Following Groundwork South’s withdrawal from the Tumbledown Farm project (Weymouth), DCC Coast & Countryside service has partnered up and a draft project plan has been produced. The project will provide an experiential environment for those with mental health and learning disabilities and accessible greenspace for local communities.
Improving Quality of Life Successful stage 1 Heritage Lottery Fund bid announced in December 2017 for the development of a £1.4M investment in Radipole Park Gardens, Weymouth. The stage 2 (final stage) is now being progressed to ensure that this investment comes to Weymouth. ASB Public Space Protection Orders now approved for West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland. Dog-related PSPO for North Dorset to be considered by Cabinet in July 2018. Contracted environmental enforcement project (Weymouth & Portland) extended beyond pilot phase for 2- years.
Developing Successful Partnerships West Dorset is recruiting a health locality officer to progress health & wellbeing work with West Dorset communities. North Dorset has allocated funds for progressing its health partnership work. Weymouth & Portland has launched successful initiatives including Walking for Health. Contract awarded for the re-location and upgrading of the CCTV service. Multi-agency project being led by DCP with completion expected in December 2018.
Future Issues
Dorset Waste Partnership – pressures on the 2019-20 budget continue due to changes in the international market for recyclates; household growth and fuel costs. Member briefings taking place during summer 2018.
Page 46
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key risk areas
11 Service operational risks have been identified for Community Protection:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 1 Medium Risks 4 Low Risks 6
Increase in DWP disposal costs CURRENT SCORE Planned risk reduction initiatives TARGET SCORE Impact 3 Impact 3 This is due to China’s restrictions on quality of raw Likelihood 5 Likelihood 4 recyclate. There will be cost control measures put in Risk Score 15 place as well as being monitored through DWP Joint Risk Score 12 Risk Rating High Committee and through DWP’s risk register. Risk Rating MEDIUM
Page 47
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Housing Head of Service – Clive Milone
(Strategic Housing, Homelessness Prevention, Housing Advice & Support, Housing Allocation, Private Sector Housing, Empty Homes, Home Improvement Agency, Supported Housing)
Lead Portfolio Holder – Cllr Tim Yarker (Housing)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 447,528 Expenditure on bed and breakfast is currently less than Premises 145,603 anticipated and it is projected that this may lead to a significant underspend at year end. However, demand for B&B is hard to Transport 6,054 predict accurately, and it may increase during the year, Supplies & Services 200,221 particularly as the new Homeless Reduction Act starts to have Income (239,100) an impact. In any event, expenditure tends to be cancelled out Net expenditure 560,306 by payments through the Housing Benefit system, though Q1 Predicted variance 0 there is the potential for irrecoverable debts to accrue which may need to be written off later on. There are a number of other quite small projected underspends and overspends which do not at present give rise for concern.
Page 48
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
Average number of working days to process Housing Register applications After a lengthy period where processing times were well below target, WDDC and WPBC applicants are currently waiting longer for their applications to be processed. There have been some staffing shortages and changes in the team doing this work which have contributed to the longer processing times, and these are now being resolved. It is anticipated that processing times will soon begin to recover and should be back to our previous levels by the end of Q2.
Total number of households on the Housing Register The total number of households on the Housing Register increased in all three councils in Q1.
Total number of households housed in Housing Association stock The number of West Dorset households housed in Q1 is sharply down due to fewer new build and relets becoming available. Numbers in North Dorset are down a little, while in Weymouth and Portland they are static.
Total number of new applications to the Housing Register All three councils have seen a fall in new applications to the Housing Register in Q1, down from the usual winter highs experienced in Q4 across the board.
Number of homelessness DECISIONS made Significantly fewer homeless decisions have been made in WDDC and NDDC in Q1, which reflects the new processes and pathways introduced by the Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA), which came into effect at the very start of Q1. Numbers increased slightly in WPBC. These are early days for the HRA, and its medium and long term impact on these figures has not yet become clear.
Number of homelessness ACCEPTANCES It was a similar story for homelessness acceptances, with significant falls in WDDC and NDDC, and a slight rise in WPBC. .Again, these are early days for the HRA, and its medium and long term impact on these figures has not yet become clear.
Page 49
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Average number of working days to process Housing Register applications Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 6 days 12 days 20 days Q1 2018/19 Target 9 days 9 days 9 days FY 2018/19 Target 9 days 9 days 9 days FY 2017/18 Actual 5.83 days 3.23 days 3.13 days
Total number of households on the Housing Register Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 958 1,694 1,676 Q4 2017/18 Actual 934 1,685 1,648 Q3 2017/18 Actual 906 1,577 1,580 Q2 2017/18 Actual 962 1,572 1,539 Q1 2017/18 Actual 886 1,555 1,523
Page 50
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Total number of new applications to the Housing Register Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 292 470 368 Q4 2017/18 Actual 351 535 432 Q3 2017/18 Actual 245 410 350 Q2 2017/18 Actual 218 460 478 Q1 2017/18 Actual 270 442 415
Total number of households housed in Housing Association stock Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 31 68 42 Q4 2017/18 Actual 37 102 42 Q3 2017/18 Actual 41 107 38 Q2 2017/18 Actual 42 83 62 Q1 2017/18 Actual 56 78 50
Page 51
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Number of homelessness decisions made Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 2 10 36 Q4 2017/18 Actual 29 23 33 Q3 2017/18 Actual 26 21 53 Q2 2017/18 Actual 16 34 41 Q1 2017/18 Actual 18 14 40
Number of homelessness acceptances Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 2 5 21 Q4 2017/18 Actual 17 15 17 Q3 2017/18 Actual 12 9 32 Q2 2017/18 Actual 12 18 25 Q1 2017/18 Actual 7 9 18
Page 52
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Number of households in Bed & Breakfast at the end of the quarter Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 4 5 21 Q4 2017/18 Actual 2 6 17 Q3 2017/18 Actual 0 4 8 Q2 2017/18 Actual 2 7 15 Q1 2017/18 Actual 2 3 5
Number of households placed in B&B during each month Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland June 2018 5 3 6 May 2018 1 4 10 April 2018 4 4 20 March 2018 1 5 11 February 2018 0 1 4 January 2018 3 1 9 December 2017 0 4 8 November 2017 1 2 10 October 2017 3 3 16 September 2017 1 5 13 August 2017 3 3 6 July 2017 1 4 9
Page 53
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Average number of days in B&B per month Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Calculation method: total calendar days in B&B of those households leaving within the month, divided by the total number of households leaving within the month = Average stay in B&B of leavers per month North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Authority Average Average Leavers Leavers Average Days Leavers Days Days June 2018 2 3 6 2 3 51 May 2018 9 2 3 5 5 11 April 2018 NA/ no leavers 0 11 3 3 14 March 2018 NA/ no leavers 0 18 4 10 15 February 2018 0 1 49 1 22 9 January 2018 11 1 30 4 44 18 December 2017 8 1 60 3 71 10 November 2017 93 3 62 3 25 6 October 2017 45 2 30 5 24 6
Page 54
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Service Plan Update
A Stronger Local Economy A DCP-wide service has been created that enables more homes to be brought back into use, thus adding to and enhancing the local housing stock. This is funded through to 2019.
Thriving and Inclusive Communities Develop and evaluate options for driving up standards in the private rented sector in the Park District, within the overall Melcombe Regis improvement project. A selective licensing scheme for Melcombe Regis is being developed, and will be taken to the Melcombe Regis Board and subsequently WPBC for approval, prior to public consultation. Implement a revised mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs. A compliant HMO licensing process and fees scheme has been developed, covering a wide range of properties within the private rented sector.
Improving Quality of Life Increase our stock of directly-managed temporary accommodation across the DCP area. At a time of rising homelessness, this can both help us to provide good quality short term housing for often vulnerable people, while delivering better value for money than traditional solutions such as bed and breakfast.
Developing Successful Partnerships Deliver an effective customer focused housing service across the partnership. This will provide DCP with a Housing team that focuses on performance excellence, and which uses smart and agile working methods. Implementation of the Housing Reduction Act from April 201 8 gives the councils a range of new duties to local people, ensuring that homelessness prevention lies at the heart of what we do. As the move to the new Dorset Council proceeds, ensure that a new Housing service is designed that meets the needs of local people. By working closely with colleagues across the existing councils, we will design a new fully integrated Housing service that can be implemented as soon as possible after the new council is created. Review the Dorset Accessible Homes policy. We will devise a common Dorset-wide policy that matches demand with available resources.
Future Issues
The transition necessary to implement the Homelessness Reduction Act is the single most important deliverable for Housing during 2018/19. It is anticipated that workloads will grow significantly. Staff have adopted markedly different ways of working, and this is going well. Elected members and the general public can be confident that Housing has prepared for these changes in a positive, detailed and measured way.
Key risk areas
14 Service operational risks have been identified for Housing:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 0 Medium Risks 7 Low Risks 7
Page 55
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Planning Development Management & Building Control Head of Service – Jean Marshall
(Major Projects & Developments, Listed Building and Conservation, Trees, Planning Enforcement, Building Control)
Lead Portfolio Holders – Cllr Ian Gardner (Planning), Cllr Alan Thacker (Community Safety & Access)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 1,390,103 Due to the continued presence of local competition and the Transport 25,167 fact that several former staff members are now actively working for private suppliers of Building Control the service is Supplies & Services 70,966 coming under increasing pressure to meet budgets. Although Income (1,110,400) work continues to be priced and a market share retained, it is Net expenditure 375,836 becoming increasingly hard to compete, coupled with the use Q1 Predicted variance 25,000(A) of agency staff to cover the recruitment situation, both of which have lead to the adverse budget variance. Some variance also relates to the non fee earning element of the service and should be funded by the council direct for any activities. This will be manged to ensure that there is minimum expenditure in respect of this account.
Agency fees remain high due to inability to recruit to some planning officer posts but also include agency engaged on corporate projects and which is being recharged to A & I. Other agency includes the specialist enforcement work which is ongoing in WDDC/WPBC and which funds have been agreed from reserves if necessary to support this complex
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
The number of applications remains steady although in WDDC the numbers are higher than the equivalent early summer period last year and is creating some additional pressure. The increase in numbers can be accounted for in part by the reduction in the validation backlog which is now meeting government targets after a period of carrying a backlog. This however has pushed the workload through into the number of applications being handled per officer in the planning team and there has been a rise in cases and thus some delays in determination although this has not affected all teams meeting the required government targets. Thera rea also some vacancies within the planning team where recruitment has been unsuccessful and some long term sickness absence.
Even with the above caseload increases performance for determining applications remains high and well above national targets.
Appeals, now being a percentage of all decisions made are negligible against government targets and with appeals on majors being rare and being less than 1% in all authorities against a 10% target so this is no longer reported upon as a target although individual appeals will be reported by exception. At present there are two significant public inquiries being handled within the team on major proposals, one retail one in NDDC (Gillingham) and one residential one in WDDC (Charminster) which again are resource hungry as there are strict timescales for this work. Non major appeals although more numerous will cont8inue to be reported in numeric terms but again are well below government targets.
Enforcement tables show the reporting of new live cases and remains high compared to 12 months ago with a considerable increase in the number of case in WPBC area this quarter (over double the number in Q4 This will put
Page 56
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19 additional pressure on staff resources to investigate these but the team are now fully staffed and coping at present time.
In terms of budget both WPBC and NDDC are currently performing at/just above a level expected both in terms of income and expenditure with WDDC slightly below predictions. At this stage in the year, with planning application fees fluctuating throughout the year there is no overall concern as a couple of larger applications would bring WDDC back up to levels expected. There is still some reliance on agency staff to support the team due to vacancies which have not been filled and sickness absence which is an added cost above permanent establishment staff levels.
Page 57
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Exception Report from Building Control Manager
Nationally figures range from those similar to DCP’s right down to around 35% of market share, it is totally dependant upon the competition from Approved Inspectors and the types of development being undertaken and in many cases the level of service received from other council departments.
Dorset also benefits from a locally poor road network without any motorway links which makes the area not so attractive to the competition coupled with the lack of large high fee earning schemes, although recently private providers have started to set up local offices within towns such as Weymouth, Blandford and Bridport to service clients which are having an effect upon the percentage of retained work.
The service also benefits from a large number of repeat customers especially local builders which is a key market to retain, coupled with a realistic approach to fee setting & the flexible, polite approach of all staff connected with the service, this can be demonstrated by the number of Partnership applications within the table below.
Locally recently there has also been a slow down in the building industry which can be attributed to the current economic climate as well as confidence due to Brexit. Competitors are also in some cases heavily discounting in order to gain work and market share, which is not allowable for a Local Authority, although it has to be noted that generally market share remains healthy particularly within Weymouth and Portland which retain an excellent 85%, North Dorset has also increased again to 73% with West Dorset slipping slightly to 71%, but overall the figures compare very well with national averages.
The Local Authority are also unable to refuse any application unlike private providers who can choose their clients, this is leading to an increasing workload regarding unauthorised works and complaints arising from the use of private providers. Currently the building control system at North Dorset is unable to produce KPI data.
A new system is being procured and implemented for all 3 authorities, so the data in respect of the KPI’s will be available, it is hoped that this will be introduced by Christmas 2018.
Page 58
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Planning Development Management
Number of valid applications received – by application type – North Dorset Month Major Minor Other Misc* TOTAL June 2018 6 24 46 82 158 May 2018 4 30 4 99 137 April 2018 7 20 33 89 149 March 2018 4 20 21 91 136 February 2018 1 30 37 88 156 January 2018 12 49 43 100 204 December 2017 2 12 19 43 76 November 2017 0 28 34 111 173 October 2017 2 39 51 108 200 September 2017 0 24 36 121 181 August 2017 2 32 40 112 186 July 2017 5 32 41 110 188
Number of valid applications received – by application type – West Dorset Month Major Minor Other Misc* TOTAL June 2018 7 19 53 112 191 May 2018 2 36 95 109 242 April 2018 4 29 94 82 209 March 2018 5 31 97 84 217 February 2018 3 32 89 84 208 January 2018 6 16 80 79 181 December 2017 4 33 89 50 179 November 2017 4 45 72 83 204 October 2017 4 37 105 78 224 September 2017 3 41 107 80 231 August 2017 4 42 80 97 223 July 2017 4 39 79 107 229
Number of valid applications received – by application type – Weymouth & Portland Month Major Minor Other Misc* TOTAL June 2018 4 9 22 38 73 May 2018 3 12 34 44 93 April 2018 1 12 32 20 65 March 2018 3 9 35 23 70 February 2018 2 7 36 33 78 January 2018 3 19 22 33 77 December 2017 5 17 40 24 86 November 2017 3 14 31 26 74 October 2017 4 12 31 28 75 September 2017 3 10 37 25 75 August 2017 2 11 36 25 74 July 2017 1 15 34 26 76
Misc includes Prior those applications types which do not fall within defined government categories and includes discharge of conditions, prior notification and other notifications
Page 59
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Fee Income Q1 Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Type of Fee North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Condition Fee £4,068.00 £7,162.00 £1,888.00 Non Material Amendment £1,657.00 £2,379.00 £1,174.00 Permitted Development Case Fee £0 £1,419 £710.00 Planning applications £208,316.00 £180,825.00 £125,500.00 Pre-App 7,641.71 £15,117.00 £3,182.40 Enforcement Case Appeals / Fees £0 £0 £0 TOTAL 221,682.71 £206,902.00 £132,454.40
Percentage of 'Major' planning applications determined within 13 weeks or agreed extension of time Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Building a Stronger Local Economy Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 100% (5 of 5) 77.78% (7 of 9 ) 83.33% (5 of 6) Q1 2018/19 Target 60% 60% 60% FY 2018/19 Target 60% 60% 60% FY 2017/18 Actual 82.76% 80.95% 87.50%
Page 60
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of 'Non-Major' planning applications determined within 8 weeks or agreed extension of time Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Building a Stronger Local Economy Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland 86.72% 84.31% 74.51% Q1 2018/19 Actual (346 of 399) (215 of 255) (76 of 102) Q1 2018/19 Target 70% 70% 70% FY 2018/19 Target 70% 70% 70% FY 2017/18 Actual 85.93% 87.86% 84.70%
Total number of appeals submitted Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 10 9 3 Q4 2017/18 Actual 4 7 4 Q3 2017/18 Actual 8 5 3 Q2 2017/18 Actual 7 4 4 Q1 2017/18 Actual 9 2 2
Page 61
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Appeals allowed as a percentage of all decisions on NON-MAJOR planning applications made by the Local Planning Authority Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 1.50% (6 of 399) 1.18 % (3 of 255) 2.94 % (3 of 102) Q1 2018/19 Target 10% 10% 10% FY 2018/19 Target 10% 10% 10% FY 2017/18 Actual 1.62% 0.86% 0%
Page 62
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Enforcement – Number of new live cases Corporate Plan Priority: Improving Quality of Life Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Non- Non- Non- Enforcement Level Priority Urgent Priority Urgent Priority Urgent Urgent Urgent Urgent Q1 2018/19 Actual ADV 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 2 1 Q1 2018/19 Actual DEV 0 0 11 1 17 13 0 13 11 Q1 2018/19 Actual BOC 0 5 9 0 11 7 0 2 5 Q1 2018/19 Actual COU 0 6 8 0 13 4 0 3 0 Q1 2018/19 Actual LBW 4 1 1 0 2 3 2 0 0 Q1 2018/19 Actual SEC 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Q1 2018/19 Actual HH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q1 2018/19 Actual TRE 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUB TOTALS 4 20 30 1 46 32 1 20 17 TOTAL 54 79 38 Key: ADV: Unauthorised advertisements DEV: Development BOC: Breach of Condition COU: Change of Use LBW: Unauthorised works to Listed Building SEC: Section 215 - Untidy Land or buildings HH: High Hedges TRE: Tree complaints
This data is a quarterly update on the number of new live cases per quarter for each of the 8 enforcement categories.
Building Control
Building Control Market Share (as at 30th June 2018) Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Full Plans 43 38 28 Building Notice 69 77 40 Partnership 10 72 59 Regularisation 9 6 5 Privately Certified 50 79 23 MARKET SHARE 73% 71% 85%
Page 63
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Building Control: Percentage of completion certificates dispatched within 7 days of inspection Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual Currently unable to report 93.75% 98.70% Q1 2018/19 Target data for North. IT system is 98% 97% FY 2018/19 Target being developed to enable 98% 97% FY 2017/18 Actual this. 97.13% 99.42%
Building Control: Percentage of Full Plan decisions deposited and notified within time limit Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual Currently unable to report 100% 100% Q1 2018/19 Target data for North. IT system is 100% 100% FY 2018/19 Target being developed to enable 100% 100% FY 2017/18 Actual this. 100% 99.09%
Page 64
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Service Plan Update
A Stronger Local Economy Planning applications are being dealt with promptly operating the scheme of delegation efficiently to ensure timely decisions. The removal of the delays in validation has pushed application numbers up within the planning team which is also seeking to recruit to 2 vacancies (and cover for one long term absence) and there has thus been an increase in workload as it has shifted along the planning process. This needs to be carefully monitored to ensure delays are kept to a minimum.DM are continuing to work alongside Policy and Implementation officers on the Accelerated Home Building programme.
Thriving and Inclusive Communities The proposed new DM ICT system is moving forwards with an agreed contract with Idox to provide a single ICT uniform system (same system as NDDC but a new version) which will lead to greater efficiencies both within the service and in terms of enabling better public access to view and comment on planning applications. A new system of public access has been introduced by the IT provider for WDDC and WPBC planning applications to meet statutory requirements. The new D4U website seems to have made it easier for people to find out information regarding planning applications.
Improving Quality of Life All planning decisions take into account relevant policy matters from national policy to neighbourhood plans where adopted. Several major applications on Local Plan allocated sites have come forwards in the last 2 years with provision for the associated infrastructure in accordance with policy provisions.
Developing Successful Partnerships DM and BC teams work closely alongside colleagues in other authorities to ensure that where possible decision making is streamlined although with different Local Plan priorities there is a limit to how closely aligned decision making can be. There are established good working relationships with all Statutory Bodies who interact with the planning system and regular Town and Parish Council training is taking place twice yearly to assist with establishing better relationships and understanding of the planning system at the local level. Work has commenced across Dorset on issues to be addressed for planning for LGR.
Actions outside of Corporate Plan Ongoing process review work is taking place although focussing at present on those processes which will need to be changed as a result of the new ICT system. There is a major project for improving the quality of the data held both in current electronic form and for digitising existing microfiche as part of a joint project with Land Charges. This is necessary for providing quality data to transfer to the new ICT system and to enable easier search facilities for users of the planning data, both internally (Land Charges and Planning) and those wishing to research planning history externally. Work is also continuing to ensure data is compliant with the provisions of the GDPR.
Future Issues
The move to a new ICT system will create some changes in how public access the current planning system although these should not be vastly different from present arrangements. There will also be some delays in planning applications being available for the public during the changeover of systems which is likely to be around end 2018. The changes being made through the data quality project will provide greater long term availability of information to the public allowing for more self service through digital means.
Page 65
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key risk areas
10 Service operational risks have been identified for Planning Development & Building Control:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 2 Medium Risks 5 Low Risks 3
Failure of new public facing ICT system CURRENT SCORE Planned risk reduction initiatives TARGET SCORE Impact 4 Impact 4 An importance for sufficient dedicated resource to be Likelihood 4 given and time allocated to allow for full testing prior to Likelihood 3 Risk Score 16 go live. Ensure adequate testing is undertaken and end Risk Score 12 Risk Rating High users are well trained. Risk Rating MEDIUM
Technical Systems failure used for processing information CURRENT SCORE Planned risk reduction initiatives TARGET SCORE Impact 4 The ICT project has included the formation of a project Impact 4 Likelihood 4 team of "super-users" of 4 staff who work within the Likelihood 4 Risk Score 16 department which will give greater resilience with the Risk Score 16 new system but loss of existing knowledge remains high for the current 3 systems. Beyond the inception of the new ICT system there will need to be posts created within the admin restructure to look at the technical and data needs of the service as there are no posts of this nature either in DM or IT teams with expertise so there will be requirements for specialist roles but these will happen once procurement of a new system has been progressed. Risk Rating HIGH The need for having dedicated ICT/Data specialists is Risk Rating MEDIUM clear both due to the new ICT system and to address the needs of the GDPR. The current project team would mitigate urgency for these posts to an extent but do not remove the issue given that these 4 staff will return to their substantive roles which are not within data management or ICT roles once the new system is in place and the creation of dedicated roles will remain post August 2018
Page 66
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Community & Policy Development Corporate Manager – Hilary Jordan
(Spatial planning, Urban design, Landscape & Sustainability, Community Planning, Community Development, Housing Enabling, Planning Obligations)
Lead Portfolio Holders – Cllr Ian Gardner (Planning), Cllr Matthew Hall (Sustainability)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 444,161 The use of 2 agency staff to cover vacancies in planning policy Premises 3,316 will increase salary spend in that area. The Development Plan budget will be overspent but there are funds in reserves to Transport 4,764 cover this (though any underspend from within the divisional Supplies & Services 161,051 budget would be used first). Payments to clients 355,535 Income (100,085) Savings have been declared on the Community Development Net expenditure 868,742 and Community Planning salary budgets as a result of Q1 Predicted variance 7,226(F) vacancies, one of which is now filled.
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
Affordable Housing:
In this quarter the Waverley Arms scheme in Weymouth completed and four shared ownership homes at Curtis Fields finished.
Affordable homes are currently being developed at Pemberley, Osprey Quay as well as Curtis Field.
Housing Land Supply:
April 2018 survey work is not yet complete and so the figures are not yet available. These will be provided in the Q2 report. As at April 2017, none of the councils had a five-year housing land supply. North Dorset has only 3.42 years’ supply. This change is due to the very low number of housing completions recently, and slower than anticipated progress on major development sites including the strategic site allocation at Gillingham. This situation has led to a significant number of speculative planning applications. West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland (which have a joint target) have 4.94 years’ supply. Where there is no five-year housing land supply, relevant local plan policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date and so cannot be given as much weight in decisions.
Page 67
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Number of affordable homes (gross) delivered (cumulative) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Building a Stronger Local Economy Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 0 2 7 Projected Year End 32 100 60 FY 2018/19 Target 50-68 70-100 50-65 (Range) FY 2017/18 Actual 9 131 13
Five Year Supply of Housing Corporate Plan Priority: Building a Stronger Local Economy
This is a national requirement that has a significant impact on planning decisions. The formula for calculating it includes factoring in any shortfalls from previous years, so the target is adjusted each time the supply is assessed.
West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland have a joint five-year land supply, as they have a joint local plan with joint targets.
The base date is 1 April each year, when a full survey is undertaken, however there is a time lag due to the processing involved to calculate the target and outturn, so the latest figures are not available until a few months later. The April 2018 field surveys have been completed but the five-year land supply figures are not yet available, though these will be available by the Q2 report.
April 2017-based figures for all areas are:
Target Actual North Dorset 2,219 1,517 (3.42 years – target not met) West Dorset and 6,244 6,163 (4.94 years – target not met) Weymouth & Portland Combined
Currently, neither North Dorset nor the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland joint local plan area has a five-year housing land supply.
Page 68
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Service Plan Update
A Stronger Local Economy The ‘Preferred Options’ document for the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan is being considered by committees during June and July, with consultation due to take place between August and October. This includes proposals for significant new development allocations including land north of Dorchester. The business plan for the new Local Authority Trading Company for West Dorset has been agreed. Bids to the Housing Infrastructure Fund for development sites at Gillingham, Chickerell and Portland were successful and further due diligence work is being carried out with Homes England to enable these funds to be released.
Thriving and Inclusive Communities There has been further progress with Neighbourhood Plans: the Piddle Valley plan has been made, the Gillingham plan will be subject to referendum in July, and the Pimperne, Fontmell Magna and Sturminster Newton plans have all been submitted for examination. Community capacity building work in Melcombe Regis is continuing, with a community support worker due to be engaged, to undertake a new programme of work. The ‘Working With You’ action plans for the more deprived areas of Weymouth & Portland have been updated in 2018 and continue to be implemented.
Improving Quality of Life Implementation of the Dorset and Cranbourne Chase AONB Management Plans is continuing; reviews of both plans (as required every five years) are taking place.
Future Issues
The revised National Planning Policy Framework has been published for consultation and all three councils responded. The final version is anticipated by the end of July and will need to be taken into account in the emerging local plans. The draft introduces a housing ‘delivery test’ in addition to the current requirement for a five-year supply of land for housing. This will increase the risk of local planning policies needing to be regarded as ‘out of date’ and given less weight in planning decisions. There is also a new requirement for ‘statement s of common ground’ to be prepared by groups of local planning authorities to demonstrate cooperation: this will be developed jointly by the Dorset authorities working together through the Strategic Planning Forum.
Page 69
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key risk areas
10 Service operational risks have been identified for Planning Community & Policy Development:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 1 Medium Risks 5 Low Risks 4
Council has inadequate supply of development land and so risks losing planning applications on appeal CURRENT SCORE Planned risk reduction initiatives TARGET SCORE Impact 4 Five year land supply is monitored annually and falling Impact 3 Likelihood 4 below target is always a risk if development sites fail to Likelihood 2 Risk Score 20 come forward. Currently, none of the councils has a five Risk Score 6 year land supply: West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland have a 4.94 year supply and North Dorset has 3.42 years’ supply. When we are without a five-year supply then less weight can be given to local policies in decisions – this will potentially mean more applications being allowed and supply being increased. The new ‘delivery test’ in the Risk Rating HIGH emerging national planning policy framework sets an Risk Rating LOW additional test and so will increase the risk. In the longer term the local plan reviews provide an opportunity to increase supply. We are also taking a proactive approach to increasing delivery through the 'Accelerating Home Building' programmes agreed by all three councils
Page 70
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Economy, Leisure & Tourism Head of Service – Nick Thornley
(Economic Regeneration, Business Support, Tourism & Visitor management, Leisure & Cultural Development and Facilities, Events Management, Beach Management, Harbour Management)
Lead Portfolio Holder – Cllr Mary Penfold (Enabling)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 814,589 Bridport & West Dorset LC - there may be an adverse variance Premises 191,633 at year end if the Trust's request for grants (as per legal agreement) exceeds the budget. Negotiations are continuing Transport 21,616 and the final figure is not yet known. Supplies & Services 645,942 Payments to Clients 758,629 Dorchester Sports Centre - a favourable variance is predicted Income (961,982) but is dependant upon the size of profit share paid to the Net expenditure 1,470,427 council by 1610 Ltd for the year 2017-18. Based on the profit Q1 Predicted variance 29,500(F) share payment for 2017-18, the favourable variance may be circa £30,000.
Tourism and events expect some adverse variances. However, these are difficult to project now as majority of the income and spends occur between Q2 and Q3. Adverse variance of £500 has been predicted due to additional water safety equipment requirement.
Page 71
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
Visit Dorset Website continues to perform well - a partnership involving 6 councils and approximately 500 businesses.
Number of visits to VisitDorset.com (cumulative) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Building a Stronger Local Economy Authority Dorset Council’s Partnership (DCP) Q1 2018/19 Actual 675,243 Q1 2018/19 Target 550,000 FY 2018/19 Target 2,000,000 FY 2017/18 Actual 1,956,944
Page 72
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Service Plan Update
A Stronger Local Economy Performance against new strategic plan for 4 councils promoting economic growth being monitored. Supported by Dorset LEP. Regular meetings of DCC and DCP officers and members to monitor progress. Visit Dorset tourism partnership progressing well as partnership of 6 rural/western local authorities and businesses, integrating with the Dorset LEP/Dorset Tourism Association. New ways of working for 2 of the 4 West Dorset TIC in place. Lyme and Sherborne being progressed. Strong partnership working with local business groups and coastal community teams. Coastal Communities bid submitted (£1 million plus) New developments at Weymouth Harbour being planned in conjunction with Peninsula development. Application for fisheries grant funding submitted at Weymouth and Lyme Regis harbours.
Thriving and Inclusive Communities Sports centre management arrangements under review in partnership with other Dorset Councils. Plans to improve Dorchester Sports Centre by operator 1610 supported. Museum development projects supported (Dorset County, Weymouth). Weymouth Museum due to re-open May 2018. Weymouth Seafront and Esplanade service continues to achieve national and European recognition for the management and maintenance of the seafront and received the 2017 Blue Flag Award, Seaside Award and TripAdvisor Beach Award. New Esplanade lighting and Sculpture trail projects being progressed in Weymouth.
Improving Quality of Life Plans to improve Weymouth Harbour based on the Fisher report being progressed. Weymouth Town Centre Manager appointed in partnership with Weymouth BID and progressing a number of projects to improve the ‘look and feel’ of the town centre – paving, hanging baskets, pedestrian signs, traffic, etc. New extension to Lyme harbour office progressing (planning permission secured). Start on site planned for October 2018.
Developing Successful Partnerships Successful working with Planning Policy team on distribution of section 106 funding to support new facilities, particularly in Dorchester. Strong partnerships with businesses and local education facilities promoting local career and job opportunities through career fairs, networking and young enterprise initiatives.
Key risk areas
11 Service operational risks have been identified for Economy, Leisure & Tourism:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 0 Medium Risks 3 Low Risks 8
Page 73
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Assets & Infrastructure Assistant Head of Service – Sarah Cairns
(Harbour & Coastal Infrastructure, Land Drainage, Emergency Planning, Capital Works, Property Development, Property & Facilities Management, Parking, Transport & Fleet Management)
Lead Portfolio Holders – Cllr John Russell (Environmental Protection & Assets)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 1,091,021 The improved enforcement regime and the favourable weather Premises 1,938,834 have increased the use of car parks. Incomes from Pay & Display and mobile phones are up15% compared to Q1 - Transport 47,806 17/18. Income from penalty charge notices is also up 7% Supplies & Services 973,751 compared to Q1 - 17/18. Income (5,449,283) Commercial Assets: Rental incomes are likely to be higher Net expenditure (1,397,871) than budgeted. Q1 Predicted variance 200,000(F) Industrial Sites: Rent received on Napolean House requires budget. Number of void lets and dilapidations on Marabout Estate - looking for tenants. Public Conveniences: New cleaning contract, received first invoice but value in dispute. Budget still required as may have to engage additional resources.
Property Services: Likely overspend on staffing and agency expenditure as salaries now higher than budget due to regrading. Agency value reduced to approx £2,000 pcm to cover staff illness.
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
Percentage of operational property that is empty - WPBC – the vacant floor area does not include North Quay which remains empty whilst its future is being determined.
Parking
Informal challenges There have been some delays in getting our responses out within the desired timescale due to a change in staff and levels of sickness. This is being addressed by the introduction of the hosted back office solution.
PCNs being cancelled as CEO error We have recently recruited a couple of new officers who are still learning – we ensure that any PCNs which have been issued in error are cancelled as soon as possible to reduce the stress and inconvenience for the driver
Staffing levels We have a vacancy arisen within the team which has been successfully advertised and filled. Once the new officer is trained we should see the level of staffing improved however we have also seen a higher level of sickness over this quarter.
Page 74
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of operational council property in terms of floor area that is empty Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 0% 0% 0% Q1 2018/19 Target No target 0.25% 1.75% n/a FY 2018/19 Target No target 0.25% 1.75% FY 2017/18 Actual 0% 0% 0%
Parking
Number of parking staff hours deployed across the district Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 390 2,555 2,115 Q1 2018/19 Target 390 2,619 2,163 FY 2018/19 Target 2,200 11,300 7,300 FY 2017/18 Actual 2,200 11,300 7,300
Page 75
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of penalty charge notices cancelled as Civil Enforcement Officer error at any stage Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 0.28% 0.47% 0.32% Q1 2018/19 Target 1% 1% 1% FY 2018/19 Target 1% 1% 1% FY 2017/18 Actual 0.72% 0.37% 0.40%
Percentage of informal challenges responded to within 10 working days Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 33% 36% 26% Q1 2018/19 Target 75% 75% 75% FY 2018/19 Target 75% 75% 75% FY 2017/18 Actual 63% 62% 64%
Page 76
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Percentage of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) giving rise to formal representations Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 2.5% 1.6% 1% Q1 2018/19 Target 5% 5% 5% FY 2018/19 Target 5% 5% 5% FY 2017/18 Actual 0.90% 1.77% 2.17%
Page 77
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Service Plan Update
A Stronger Local Economy Following the member decision in September The Peninsula development submitted an outline planning application in May 2018 – this work involves the preparation of layout designs and consultation with key stakeholders, .The Dorchester Town Centre project is progressing with archaeological investigations recently carried out on Fairfield car park. As the sale of North Quay to Acorn Developments was not completed we are looking at alternatives for the site which remains a key site for regeneration as part of the Weymouth Town Centre Masterplan. Work continues across all 3 council areas with PSP to release sites for housing or capital receipts. We are also looking at under used car parks that are not performing well financially. Resurfacing of car parks in West Bay is now complete.
Thriving and Inclusive Communities The construction works at Shire Hall are now complete, with the attraction open to the public in May 2018. Community sandbag stores have been replenished following winter. The out of hours response (Bronze, silver and gold) continues to be manged by A&I along with dealing with any emergency incidents either in or out of hours including keeping up to date operational response plans for flooding, coastal pollution and landslips. We have also chaired Safety Advisory Groups for larger events. Work has taken place to transfer the Greenhill chalets to a user group but is still to complete.
Improving Quality of Life Work is nearing completion on the asset register for all three councils that will identify all costs and all income for each individual asset. This will be of particular use when considering transfer of assets to town and parish councils. The Estates Manager has had a meeting with the National Trust regarding Verne Common and a paper was taken to WPBC Management Committee, works expected to take place late summer 2018. Discussions have taken place with EA regarding a strategy for Weymouth Harbour walls, the coastal process study report has been delivered.
Developing Successful Partnerships The generator from Nordon has been moved to Crookhill as part of our business continuity planning. Each of the 3 councils now has an approved parking policy in place. Asset condition surveys along with bathymetric and laser surveys have been carried out on The Cobb with a professional partner stakeholder event to discuss the approach to be taken with repairing the Grade 1 listed structure.
Actions outside of Corporate Plan Work has begun on discussions regarding transfer of assets to Town and Parish Councils in general. A&I continue to inspect and maintain all 3 councils assets including our operational buildings, industrial units, catering and retail outlets, car parks, coastal defences, harbours, bridges, tunnels, drainage, hotels, public conveniences, land etc. We are working in partnership with the EA to deliver a comprehensive flood alleviation scheme at West Bay.
Future Issues
It is hoped that the preferred developer for the Nordon site, Aster, will be submitting plans for consent in the next quarter. Depending upon the level of interest expressed by town and parish councils work will continue to transfer assets to them.
Plans have been approved for reconstruction of the Harbour masters office in Lyme Regis with work planned to start in September. Weymouth harbour wall repairs continue with planning consent for Wall D submitted and the works programmed to be on site in late autumn/winter. The final stage of Lyme Regis coastal defence work at the Cobb is programmed to start later this year. Weymouth Harbour will have a full asset condition survey carried out in 2018
Asset valuations will be carried out by the end of 2018. Page 78
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key risk areas
13 Service operational risks have been identified for Assets & Infrastructure:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 0 Medium Risks 8 Low Risks 5
Page 79
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Democratic Services & Elections Corporate Manager – Jacqui Andrews
(Democratic Support, Electoral Registration & Elections)
Lead Portfolio Holder – Cllr Peter Barrowcliff (Corporate)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 247,535 Whilst it is not proposed to recruit to the Electoral Services Transport 16,567 Manager vacancy, there will be a need to engage a casual member of staff to ensure the safe delivery of the May 2019 Supplies & Services 455,240 elections. There is no scheduled Borough or Parish Election Income (35,425) this financial year so no additional expenditure is predicted Net expenditure 683,917 unless a by-election is called. Q1 Predicted variance 3,690(A) £2,230 overspend on member allowances (3 extra SRA payments to Portfolio Holders) £1,116 overspend on car allowances (extra LGR meetings and attendance at member training and conferences).
Key performance data
Democratic Services & Elections currently have no Business Review performance measures.
Service Plan Update
A pilot scheme was run with officers writing their reports directly into the ModGov committee administration system. This helped identify a number of small issues and the Team is currently in the process of scheduling training with all report-writing officers on ModGov workflow. This will be commenced over the summer period.
Promoting digital registration – the Team is promoting digital registration in all communications with residents and included an incentive with the annual canvass to encourage a digital response. The incentive resulted in a higher percentage digital return than in previous years when there was no incentive. The annual canvass is due to start at the end of July 2018.
The Community Governance Review (CGR) for Weymouth has been concluded and the Borough Council has agreed to establish a Town Council for Weymouth with effect from 1 April 2019. Working is now ongoing to set up the Town Council, and determine the initial budget and transfer of assets.
Future Issues
Together with all other Services, the Team will be involved in the work to achieve successful local government reorganisation. To date, the Team has been involved in preparing a submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in respect of the Boundary Review being undertaken by them establishing Wards for the new Unitary Councils. The Team is currently involved in preparation for the Elections in May 2019 and developing a governance structure for the new Dorset Council.
Page 80
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key risk areas
7 Service operational risks have been identified for Democratic Services & Elections:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 0 Medium Risks 2 Low Risks 5
Page 81
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Human Resources & Organisational Development Corporate Manager – Bobbie Bragg
(HR Policy, Recruitment, Workforce Planning, Staff Performance, Health & Safety)
Lead Portfolio Holder – Cllr Peter Barrowcliff (Corporate)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 238,633 There may be a small saving on salaries at year end, but Transport 1,772 current underspends on corporate training and workforce development are likely to increase and the majority of these Supplies & Services 19,317 budgets are predicted to be spent at year end. Some other Net expenditure 259,722 potential underspends may arise within Occupational Health Q1 Predicted variance 0 and Legal Expenses, but detailed predictions cannot be made until later in the year.
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
The average FTE figure is based on a comparison of data supplied for the ONS quarterly surveys as at March 2018 and June 2018. The Q1 figure of 1.55 days per FTE employee compares with a corresponding figure of 1.80 days for last year.
Total days lost for the period was 847 (963 days in Q1 last year). The number of absence periods was 150 (210 last year). Long term absence amounted to 57% of all absence (49% last year). 16 employees had a long term absence (15 last year). As at the end of Q1, 8 had fully returned, 2 were on phased returns and 6 were still off work.
Page 82
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Average number of working days lost to sickness per employee (cumulative) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority Dorset Council’s Partnership (DCP) Q1 2018/19 Actual 1.55 days Q1 2018/19 Target 1.75 days FY 2018/19 Target 7 days FY 2017/18 Actual 7.23 days
Service Plan Update
LGR HR & OD work stream – members of the DCP HR team are working collaboratively with our future partner organisations on all elements of the LGR HR&OD work stream & HR&OD programme
Redesign programme – Two outstanding redesigns within Development Services are now underway and will be completed shortly. One newly emerged redesign recently approved by SLT’s is currently being planned.
DCP HR &OD team transitional redesign – The HR&OD Business partner model has been reconfigured and implemented in July in order to properly support the LGR programme and maintain resilience and capacity for DCP business as usual.
Recruitment and Selection - LGR Programme board have introduced a Pan Dorset vacancy management controls across all of the Dorset Councils
HR & OD Service plans - All other HR&OD Service actions are on track or have been completed.
Future Issues
An independent HR&OD lead has been commissioned to work within the programme team and direct all of the HR&OD work streams to take us up to the 1st April 2019. This work will involve all the HR&OD teams to work more collaboratively and cohesively together in order to successfully implement the HR transactions.
Page 83
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Key risk areas
6 Service operational risks have been identified for Human Resources & Organisational Development:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 1 Medium Risks 2 Low Risks 3
Insufficient capacity to support DCP HR Business as usual and LGR HR & OD delivery plan CURRENT SCORE Planned risk reduction initiatives TARGET SCORE Impact 4 Impact 4 Likelihood 4 Review and redesign of HR & OD to ensure adequate Likelihood 1 Risk Score 16 resources, capacity & resilience to support DCP and the Risk Score 4 LGR HR&OD delivery plan. Risk Rating High Risk Rating LOW
Page 84
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Legal Services Corporate Manager – Robert Firth
(Legal, Deputy Monitoring Officer, Land Charges)
Lead Portfolio Holder – Cllr Peter Barrowcliff (Corporate)
Revenue summary
Subjective analysis Full Year Current Comments / actions Budget 2018/19 (£) Employees 465,938 The current favourable position of both legal and land charges Transport 816 budgets are likely to be adversely impacted by in-year impacts. For Legal the failure to be able to recruit to an outstanding Supplies & Services 84,951 vacant post means consideration will need to be given to the Income (206,500) use of a locum. In relation to land charges, the end budget Net expenditure 345,205 position depends upon the number of chargeable searches received as against budgeted income. Current trends are Q1 Predicted variance 0 positive; however this is likely to be subject to on-going fluctuations.
Key performance data
Exception Report from Head of Service
The figures for this quarter in part reflect the fact that the land charges peak season really only started kicking in circa mid May. Over the next few months as peak flows coincide with other demands on officer capacity/availability, it will be a challenge to keep performance at these levels and some degree of slippage is likely. Nevertheless, at this stage all three councils are able to record delivery within the KPI.
Average days to process Land Charge searches (working days) Aim Corporate Plan Priority: Developing Successful Partnerships Authority North Dorset West Dorset Weymouth & Portland Q1 2018/19 Actual 5 days 7 days 3 days Q1 2018/19 Target 15 days 15 days 15 days Q1 2018/19 Target 15 days 15 days 15 days FY 2017/18 Actual 12 days 33 days 17 days
Page 85
Appendix 2 West Dorset District Council Business Review – Q1 2018/19
Service Plan Update
Maintain adequate support and assistance to the Councils’ property activities Resources remain under pressure due to constant high work demands. Temporary resources remain in place and other options also continue to be explored to help manage existing and anticipated high work flows.
Restructure of legal and land charges services Completed. Measures are in place to seek to address vacant posts that cannot currently be filled and to ensure the service remains fit for purpose up to and beyond 1st April 2019.
Maintain initiatives to secure the delivery of an effective Land Charges Service As at the previous quarter, work on securing the delivery of a resilient and effective land charges services continues in a variety of ways including acquisition of a single IT system, an on-going action plan for West Dorset and a project to deliver improved data. All Councils are now currently operating within target times.
Provide support and assistance to the development of reorganisation initiatives The Legal Services Unit is contributing to work streams supporting the introduction of the new unitary council. The volume of work in this area continues to increase.
Explore opportunities to develop improving working relationships with other Councils Various work streams are on-going both in relation to legal services and land charges to identify issues relevant to securing an effective transition following go live.
Future Issues
Workloads arising as a result of the Securing Dorset Council project continue to impact upon the legal service and to a lesser degree, land charges. Actions are in place to assess such impacts and seek to secure measures to minimise any adverse impacts.
Key risk areas
8 Service operational risks have been identified for Legal Services:-
Very High Risks 0 High Risks 0 Medium Risks 2 Low Risks 6
Page 86
WDDC Capital Update Quarter 1 2018/19 Appendix 3
West Dorset District Council - Capital Update Appendix 3 Overall scheme budget Current year budget Scheme Budget Total Predicted Estimated 2018/19 Current Year Forecast Commentary Holder Scheme Total Scheme Budget Expenditure Year End Budget Expenditure Variance to 30/06/2018 Variance
£ £ £ £ £ £ Environmental Protection & Assets - Cllr John Russell Dorchester S Cairns 1,400,000 1,400,000 0 511,138 18,430 492,708 A number of studies have been commissioned to better inform Retail Scheme the scale, impact, and options for various site proposals. Together with other retail impact, masterplan, transport and parking reports, these form a useful basis for the future needs and issues for the Town. Once all are completed and considered, they should then allow members more clarity, and assist in them then determining the best courses for action Page 87 Page West Bay S Cairns 950,000 950,000 0 133,235 7,400 125,835 Main detailed design and build contractor appointed December Harbour Wall 2016. Completion on 31 July 2017. Main contract total £758,729.91. Retention payment £16,282.93 due July 2018. We have been successful in a grant application to the European Maritime and fisheries fund, for a contribution to the overall cost of the works. Some additional works funded to improve the quay surface for safety and aesthetics cost approx. £35,000.
Lyme Regis Env. S Cairns 3,492,843 3,492,843 0 287,698 0 287,698 Main construction and supervising contracts complete and final Imps Phase 4 accounts settled. Slope monitoring, landscaping maintenance and environmental/ecological mitigation works will continue through 2018/19 using the remaining funding from the Environment Agency of £287,698. WDDC Capital Update Quarter 1 2018/19 Appendix 3
Overall scheme budget Current year budget Scheme Budget Total Predicted Estimated 2018/19 Current Year Forecast Commentary Holder Scheme Total Scheme Budget Expenditure Year End Budget Expenditure Variance to 30/06/2018 Variance
£ £ £ £ £ £ Lyme Environmental Regis Env. S Cairns Protection &1,000,000 Assets - Cllr John1,000,000 Russell 0 98,410 19,364 79,046 Budget agreed at December 2016 Executive Committee for Imps Phase 5 investigatory and preparatory works, £110,992 has been spent in 17/18 with the remainder to be incurred in 18/19. Engineering consultants JBA appointed and investiagtion works under way which are due for completion in 18/19. Major scheme to be developed in conjunction with Environment Agency once investigatory works complete. Paper taken to July Strategy Committee for funding for main scheme, remaining budget will
Page 88 Page be spent on design fees.
Lyme Regis S Cairns 480,000 480,000 0 219,389 0 219,389 The budget is allocated for the design and build of an upper floor Harbour Office to the existing Harbour Office. Investigatory works have indicated that the scope of work required may be wider than originally anticipated. A paper is intended to be submitted to the July meeting of the Strategy Committee to obtain additional funds to complete the works.
West Bay Coast S Cairns 0 0 0 0 0 0 This project is 100% EA Grant Funded.The purpose of the Protection scheme is to maintain local beaches to enhance coastal Works, Beach defences, flood protection and reduce the wave over topping Management risk. Sands and gravels are dredged from local waters and Plan navigation channels to provided material with the additional benefit of maintaining navigable channels to the harbour. We have submitted a funding bid via the EA MTP Capital Refresh Programme to continue the existing works for a further 4 years. Consderation will be given to submitting a new PAR (Project Appraisal Report) to the PAB (Project Appraisal Board) for funding approval. WDDC Capital Update Quarter 1 2018/19 Appendix 3
Overall scheme budget Current year budget Scheme Budget Total Predicted Estimated 2018/19 Current Year Forecast Commentary Holder Scheme Total Scheme Budget Expenditure Year End Budget Expenditure Variance to 30/06/2018 Variance
£ £ £ £ £ £ EnvironmentalHousing - Cllr ProtectionTimothy Yarker & Assets - Cllr John Russell Housing H Jordan 2,223,000 2,223,000 0 1,002,946 396,800 606,146 £519,790 paid to Yarlington Housing Association on completion Initiatives of the Extra Care scheme. Enabling - Cllr Mary Penfold Dorchester N 5,280,000 5,280,000 0 432,951 0 432,951 At present we do not expect a variance at the end of the year as Leisure Centre Thornley all the budget will be spent. Phase 1 Page 89 Page
West End N Thornley 362,877 362,877 0 50,000 25,000 25,000 It was agreed in 2017/18 that a £200,000 grant will be awarded Community Hall to Sherborne West End Community Association for the project to extend the West End Community Hall. All of the original £200k grant has been claimed. An additional grant of £20,000 has also been agreed. To date all of the grant has been claimed with the exception of 50% of the additional £20,000.
Shire Hall - Main S Cairns 2,706,264 2,706,264 0 232,978 100,397 132,581 Works to refurbish and fit out the Shire Hall are complete. The Project attraction successfully opened in May 2018, operated by an independent trust, the SH(D)T - Shire Hall (Dorchester) Trust. The expense variance relates to invoices not yet received for final stages of the project. We expect to have received and settled all project invoices by the end of FY18/19.
WDDC Totals 17,894,984 17,894,984 0 2,968,745 567,391 2,401,354 This page is intentionally left blank WDDC Treasury Management Quarterly Report as at 30th June 2018 Appendix 4
31st Mar Average Current Portfolio 30st June Average 2018 Rate (%) 2018 Rate (%) £ Debt £ 1,200,000 2.84 PWLB 1,150,000 2.84 1,200,000 2.84 Total Debt 1,150,000 2.84 Current Investments Property Funds 4,639,761 5.37 CCLA property fund 4,689,179 5.04 2,663,453 4.33 LIME property fund 2,685,129 4.30
Units Funds 4,058,534 0.70 Payden Sterling Reserve Fund 4,060,261 0.80 4,066,772 5.39 HC Charteris Premium Fund 2,510,872 5.39 416,875 n/a HC Charteris Gold Portfolio Fund 156,987 n/a 3,343,573 3.87 UBS Multi Asset Income Fund 3,317,144 3.68 924,035 6.22 City Financial Diversified Fixed Interest Fd 916,829 5.26 2,957,191 7.28 Schroders Income Maximiser Fund 3,084,491 7.37 2,728,751 2.84 City Financial Multi Asset Income Fund 2,750,570 3.89 3,296,925 3.92 M&G Global Dividend Fund 3,542,878 4.00 952,235 3.07 CCLA Diversified Income Fund 977,447 3.52 1,952,804 3.51 M&G Strategic Corporate Bond Fund 1,915,462 3.41 2,473,909 4.02 Investec Diversified Income Fund 2,458,729 3.97 996,082 0.95 Royal London Enhanced Cash Plus Fund 996,684 0.93 2,441,099 3.17 Threadneedle Strategic Bond Fund 2,409,831 3.40 2,350,159 3.34 Threadneedle UK Equity Income Fund 2,559,432 3.41 Threadneedle Sterling Short-Dated 986,669 1.67 Corporate Bond Fund 985,651 1.80
Covered Bonds 2,074,083 4.25 Leeds BS Covered Bond 4.25% 17/12/18 2,078,369 4.25 2,093,956 4.75 Yorkshire BS Covered Bond 4.75% 12/4/18 - 4.75 2,007,331 0.74 Leeds Build. Society FRN 01/10/19 2,008,414 0.92
Money Market Funds 325,000 0.39 Blackrock sterling liquidity 1,900,000 0.42 325,000 0.39 DB Advisors managed sterling 2,100,000 0.41 325,000 0.43 Goldman Sachs liquid reserves 2,100,000 0.46 325,000 0.44 Standard Life sterling liquidity 2,100,000 0.47 325,000 0.48 Federated sterling liquidity 2,100,000 0.52
Deposits - - Debt Management Office (DMO) - - 1,005,000 0.25 Santander reserve account 1,005,000 0.25 206,000 0.15 HSBC call account 747,000 0.15 1,000,000 0.16 Handelsbanken liquidity account 1,000,000 0.16
51,260,197 Total Investments 57,156,359
50,060,197 Net (Debt)/Investments 56,006,359
Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
Strategy Committee 11 September 2018 Treasury Outturn Report 2017/18 For Decision
Portfolio Holder(s) Cllr Peter Barrowcliff
Senior Leadership Team Contact: J Vaughan, Strategic Director
Report Author: John Symes, Financial Resources Manager
Statutory Authority s.151 of the Local Government Act 1972
Purpose of Report
1 To present an update on treasury management activity and performance for the 2017/18 financial year in accordance with the Council’s treasury strategy.
Recommendations
2 That Members note changes to the treasury portfolio.
Reasons for Recommendation
3 To ensure that Members are aware of developments within their remit.
Background Information
4 The Treasury Management Strategy has been underpinned by the adoption of the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management in Public Services and recommends updates at least twice a year. The Council is supported in this area by Arlingclose, its Treasury Management advisors, who provide expertise which the Council would not be able to resource itself.
5 The Treasury Management Strategy Statement for the year commencing 1st April 2017 was adopted by Council on 27th February 2017.
Report Page 93 6 Governance Structure
7 The annual Treasury Management Strategy Statement (TMSS) and annual report are considered and approved by Members. Other treasury management reporting includes a quarterly update as part of the Council’s Business Review report to Strategy Committee and also through the treasury management briefings which are open to all members.
8 Treasury management responsibility is delegated to Jason Vaughan, Strategic Director, in his capacity as s.151 officer in order to be able to make reasoned and timely decisions with the objective of minimising risk to Council assets and to ensure compliance with statutory requirements.
9 Treasury management briefings have taken place in January 2018 and most recently in July 2018 to update Members on treasury management activity and will continue to meet on a regular basis.
10 Debt Management
Balance on Debt New Balance on Incr/(Decr) in 01/04/2017 Repaid Borrowing 31/03/2018 Borrowing £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Short Term 975 975 0 600 (975) Borrowing Long Term 1,200 0 0 600 0 Borrowing TOTAL 2,175 975 0 1,200 (975) BORROWING Average Rate % 2.84% 2.91%
11 As at 31st March 2018 the Councils external debt stood at £1,200,000 following scheduled debt repayments of £975,000 in the year. Repayments in the 2018/19 financial year will total a further £600,000. The final remaining £600,000 will be paid within the 2019/20 financial year. Any early repayment of debt continues to be at a premium.
12 Interest paid in the last financial year totalled £46,941 against a budget of £46,941. For 2018/19 interest payments will total £28,291.
13 Investment Activity
14 Both the CIPFA and MHCLGs investment guidance requires the Authority to invest prudently and have regard to the security and liquidity of investments before seeking the optimum yield.
15 The Council’s strategy for investments was based upon minimising risk and safeguarding capital. This was maintained by following the Authority’s counterparty policy as set out in its Treasury Management Strategy Statement which defined “high credit quality” organisations as those having a long-term credit rating of A- or higher that are domiciled in the UK or a foreign country with a sovereign rating of AA+ or higher.
16 The Authority has adopted a voluntary measure in its exposure to credit risk by monitoring the value-weighted average credit rating of its Page 94 investment portfolio, which is supplied by our advisors. This is calculated by applying a score to each investment (AAA = 1, AA+ = 2, etc) and taking an arithmetic average, weighted by the size of each investment.
Target Actual Arlingclose Client Ave Portfolio average credit A- AA+ AA- rating
17 The Council held investments of £48,647,606 as at 01/04/17 with holdings of £51,121,239 by the year end. Current investments total £59,973,289 as at 31st July 2018.
18 Investment activity for the year included the following transactions having undertaken a portfolio modelling exercise and following advice from the Authority’s Treasury Management adviser, Arlingclose:
. £500,000 - City Financial Multi Asset Diversified Fund . £1,000,000 - CCLA Diversified Income Fund . £2,000,000 - M&G Strategic Corporate Bond Fund . £1,000,000 - Royal London Enhanced Cash Plus Fund . £2,500,000 - Investec Diversified Income Fund . £2,500,000 - Threadneedle Strategic Bond Fund . £1,000,000 - Threadneedle Sterling Short-Dated Corporate Bond Fund . £2,500,000 – Threadneedle UK Equity Income Fund
. The sale of a third of the units held in the Charteris Gold Fund for £142,024. The remaining two thirds valued at £277,917 and have since been sold. . The continued use of five Money Market Funds (MMFs) in order to provide diversification of exposure and also high liquidity which helps maintain our foremost priority of capital security and also cashflow requirements. . As an indication of the level of activity investment purchases in the year totalled £98,010,000 (2016/17 £120,945,000) with corresponding receipts of £96,260,000 (2016/17 £119,195,000). . One fixed term deposit was made with Lloyds Bank and a total of 3 short term deposits were made with the government’s debt management office.
19 For the financial year ending 31st March 2018 the Council received £1,570,559 (2016/17 £1,209,441) interest at an average income return of 2.98% (2016/17 2.68%). Total investments include sums held for cashflow purposes as well as pooled funds. This is favourable against benchmarks of 1.42% for 51 English Non-Met Districts and also against 1.05% average for Arlingclose clients (see appendix 1).
20 Further detail of the comparative treasury position as at 31st March 2018 is available at appendix 2.
21 Further economic background, as provided by our treasury advisor, is available at appendix 3.
22 Compliance with Prudential Indicators Page 95 23 The Council can confirm that it has complied with its Prudential Indicators for 2017/18, which were set in February 2017 as part of the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy Statement.
24 In compliance with the requirements of the CIPFA Code of Practice this report provides members with a summary report of the treasury management activity during 2017/18. None of the Prudential Indicators have been breached and a prudent approach has been taken in relation to investment activity with priority being given to security and liquidity over yield.
Corporate Plan
25 Performance aim
Risk Management
26 Risk that ineffective governance arrangements will expose the council to significant financial or reputational risk and to the risk of non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Appendices
27 Appendix 1 – Income Return on Total Investments 2017/18 28 Appendix 2 – Treasury Investments: portfolio as at 31st March 2018 29 Appendix 3 – Arlingclose Economic Commentary
Background Documents (including relevant policy documents)
30 Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy 2017/18 - Full Council Agenda 27th February 2017.
Footnote
31 Issues relating to financial, environmental, economic and equalities implications have been considered and any information relevant to the decision is included within the report.
Report Author & Contact: John Symes, Financial Resources Manager Telephone: 01305 252341 Email: [email protected]
Page 96 Income Only Return on Total Investments 4.5%
4.0% WDDC 2.98% 51 English Non-Met Districts Ave 1.42% 3.5% 135 LAs Ave 1.05%
3.0% Page 97 Page 2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0% Series1 Series2 Series3 This page is intentionally left blank WDDC Treasury Management Portfolio as at 31st March 2018 Appendix 2
31st Mar Average Current Portfolio 31st Mar Average 2017 Rate (%) 2018 Rate (%) £ Debt £ 2,175,000 2.84 PWLB 1,200,000 2.91 2,175,000 2.84 Total Debt 1,200,000 2.91 Current Investments Property Funds 4,453,073 5.17 CCLA property fund 4,639,761 5.37 2,573,425 4.43 LIME property fund 2,663,453 4.33
Units Funds 4,073,188 0.76 Payden Sterling Reserve Fund 4,058,534 0.70 4,416,678 3.37 HC Charteris Premium Fund 4,066,772 5.39 561,432 n/a HC Charteris Gold Portfolio Fund 277,917 n/a 3,458,775 3.81 UBS Multi Asset Income Fund 3,343,573 3.87 1,005,287 4.92 City Financial Diversified Fixed Interest Fd 924,035 6.22 3,038,866 6.55 Schroders Income Maximiser Fund 2,957,191 7.49 2,420,188 2.48 City Financial Multi Asset Income Fund 2,728,751 2.84 3,423,026 3.71 M&G Global Dividend Fund 3,296,925 3.92 - - CCLA Diversified Income Fund 952,235 3.07 - - M&G Strategic Corporate Bond Fund 1,952,804 3.51 - - Investec Diversified Income Fund 2,473,909 4.02 - - Royal London Enhanced Cash Plus Fund 996,082 0.95 - - Threadneedle Strategic Bond Fund 2,441,099 3.17 - - Threadneedle UK Equity Income Fund 2,350,159 3.34 - - Threadneedle Sterling Short-Dated Corporate Bond Fund 986,669 1.67
Covered Bonds 2,148,719 4.25 Leeds BS Covered Bond 4.25% 17/12/18 2,074,083 4.25 2,176,277 4.75 Yorkshire BS Covered Bond 4.75% 12/4/18 2,093,956 4.75 2,006,672 0.75 Leeds Build. Society FRN 01/10/19 2,007,331 0.74
Money Market Funds 1,500,000 0.20 Blackrock sterling liquidity 325,000 0.39 1,500,000 0.23 DB Advisors managed sterling 325,000 0.39 1,500,000 0.21 Goldman Sachs liquid reserves 325,000 0.43 1,500,000 0.23 Standard Life sterling liquidity 325,000 0.44 1,500,000 0.27 Federated sterling liquidity 325,000 0.48
Deposits 1,000,000 0.23 Santander reserve account 1,005,000 0.25 1,892,000 0.15 HSBC call account 206,000 0.15 2,500,000 0.32 Handelsbanken liquidity account 1,000,000 0.16
48,647,606 Total Investments 51,121,239
46,472,606 Net (Debt)/Investments 49,921,239
Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 3
Arlingclose Treasury Advisors – Latest Economic Commentary and Outlook
Economic background: Commodity prices fell during the quarter, although oil prices rose, peaking at $75 a barrel before falling slightly to just over $73. The primary factor in the oil price’s recent fall was the OPEC’s (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) announcement that a deal had been reached with non-OPEC nations to increase nominal production by 1 million barrels a day.
UK Consumer Price Inflation (CPI) index fell over the quarter and the data released for May showed CPI at 2.4%, a 12-month low. The most recent labour market data for April 2018 showed the unemployment rate at 4.2%, a low last seen in 1975. However real wages (i.e. adjusted for inflation) grew only by 0.4%, a marginal increase unlikely to have had much effect for households. Q1 GDP data released in April and revised in May showed economic activity slowing to 0.2%. The Bank of England made no change to monetary policy at its meetings in May and June, however hawkish minutes and a 6-3 vote to maintain rates have raised expectations of a rate hike at the August meeting.
Having raised rates in March, the US Federal Reserve again increased its target range of official interest rates in June by 0.25% to between 1.75% and 2% and markets now expect two further rises in 2018.
Fears rose of a global trade war on the announcement of the Trump Administration implementing tariffs on $200bn of imports, notably steel, aluminium, food and chemicals. Canada, the EU and China contemplated announced retaliatory tariffs as did Mexico. Many of these have since been instituted in early July. The announcements sparked a sell-off in global equity markets, with the major equity global indices falling.
The EU Withdrawal Bill, which repeals the European Communities Act 1972 that took the UK into the EU and enables EU law to be transferred into UK law, narrowly made it through Parliament, with a vote of 319 to 303, after the government gave assurances that Parliament would have a meaningful vote in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Very little progress was made in negotiating future trading arrangements, extending the period of uncertainty.
Financial markets: Gilt yields displayed marked volatility during the quarter, particularly following Italy’s political crisis in late May when government bond yields saw sharp moves akin to those at the height of the European financial crisis with falls in yield in safe-haven UK, German and US government bonds. The yield on the 5-year benchmark gilt fell from 1.13% to 1.04% during the quarter, the 10- year gilt fell from 1.36% to 1.28% and the yield on the 20-year gilt rose marginally from 1.71% to 1.72%. Money markets rates remained low: 1-month, 3-month and 12-month LIBID rates averaged 0.38%, 0.55% and 0.84% in the quarter respectively.
Credit background: UK bank credit default swaps rose marginally over the quarter, but the overall level was still low against historic averages.
There were a few credit rating changes during the quarter. Moody’s downgraded Barclays Bank Plc’s long-term rating to A2 from A1 after the banking group completed its restructure to be compliant with UK bank ring-fencing requirements which come into effect in 2019. The agency also downgraded Royal Bank of Scotland plc’s (RBS plc) long-term ratings to Baa2 from A3 on its view that the credit metrics of RBS plc, which will become the non-ring-fenced NatWest Markets plc, will become weaker and less diversified and the main functions of the bank would be in higher risk activities. Moody’s and Fitch upgraded the long-term ratings of NatWest Bank and Ulster Bank on the view that their credit profiles are expected to improve following ring-fencing. The Authority had suspended RBS as an
Page 101 Appendix 3
investment counterparty ahead of the downgrade as it no longer met the Authority’s higher credit rating threshold of A- in its 2018/19 strategy.
S&P revised the Royal Bank of Canada’s outlook to stable from negative whilst affirming the long- term rating at AA- and Fitch revised the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s outlook to negative from stable, whilst affirming the bank’s long-term rating at AA-.
Outlook for the remainder of 2018/19
The MPC has maintained expectations of a rise in interest rates this year. Arlingclose’s central case is for Bank Rate is to rise once in 2018 and twice more in 2019. The MPC has a definite bias towards tighter monetary policy. While policymakers are wary of domestic inflationary pressures over the next two years, it is believed that the MPC members consider both that: 1) ultra-low interest rates result in other economic problems, and that 2) higher Bank Rate will be a more effective weapon should downside Brexit risks crystallise.
Arlingclose’s view is that the UK economy still faces a challenging outlook as the minority government continues to negotiate the country's exit from the European Union. Central bank actions and geopolitical risks, such as prospective trade wars, have and will continue to produce significant volatility in financial markets, including bond markets.
Page 102 Agenda Item 8
Strategy Committee 11 September 2018 Community Governance Review of the Parish of Bridport
For Decision
Briefholder Cllr Peter Barrowcliff
Senior Leadership Team Contact: S Caundle, Assistant Chief Executive
Report Author: Jacqui Andrews, Corporate Manager, Democratic & Electoral Services
Statutory Authority Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”)
Purpose of Report
1. To set out options for progressing the Community Governance Review of the parish of Bridport.
Recommendations
2. Strategy Committee is asked to either:
a) agree the draft recommendations for reviewed parish boundaries for Bridport, summarised below, and illustrated on the map attached at Appendix C, for public consultation with a view to establishing revised parish boundaries for Bridport at the same time as any new Unitary Council for Dorset:
The amendment of the Bridport parish boundaries to include land currently forming part of Symondsbury Parish as indicated in blue on the map attached at Appendix B. The name of the proposed Parish Council will remain unchanged ie Bridport Town Council The first election to the revised Parish Council to be in 2019 and then every fourth year thereafter, or at such other time specified in the Structural Change Order made by the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government; The number of councillors to be elected to the proposed new Parish Council (Council size) will be 18; The proposed new parish will be divided into 2 wards for the purposes of electing councillors; The boundaries of the wardsPage of the 103proposed new Council will be as indicated on the map attached at Appendix C; The names of the proposed Wards are Bridport North and Bridport South; The number of Councillors to be elected to each Ward is 9; and
b) to delegate to the Corporate Manager, Democratic & Electoral Services, power to undertake all action including any determinations in order to progress the consultation referred to in the Terms of Reference agreed by Strategy Committee in April 2018;
OR
c) to agree to halt progress of the Community Governance Review whilst the Local Government Boundary Commission for England undertake the principal council boundary review for Dorset, and recommend that Bridport Town Council resubmits its request to the Dorset Council after its creation in April 2019 in order than a more wide-reaching review, including the areas highlighted by local residents in the initial consultation, can be undertaken.
Reason for Decision
3. To ensure that the Strategy Committee meets the requirements of all relevant legislation and guidance should a decision be made to revise the parish boundaries of Bridport Town Council.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4. From February 2008, principal councils have had responsibility for undertaking community governance reviews and have been able to decide whether to give effect to recommendations made in those reviews. In making such a decision, Councillors are required to take account of the views of local people ensuring that governance arrangements continue to reflect local identities and facilitate effective and convenient local government.
5. At its meeting on 24 April 2018, Strategy Committee agreed Terms of Reference for a Community Governance Review (CGR) considering the parish boundaries of Bridport. The Terms of reference for a CGR must specify the area under review and these terms of reference must be published. The Terms of Reference were agreed by Strategy Committee and published on 25 April 2018. The Review must be concluded within 12 months of this date as required by legislation ie 24 April 2019.
6. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) requires that principal councils have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.
Page 104 Community Governance Review Process
7. The Strategy Committee created a Task and Finish Group made up of District Councillors that represent Bridport and Symondsbury Parishes to consider initial consultation responses.
8. A comprehensive public engagement exercise has been undertaken seeking views of local residents and interested parties on how local governance should be arranged in the area. This included advertisements on the internet including the online newsroom, social media, direct communications with local councils and, at their request, attendance at a Symondsbury parish council meeting. The period of consultation closed on 11 July 2018.
Consultation responses received
9. A copy of the full consultation responses is attached at Appendix A. Throughout this report, reference to the Vearse Farm planning exclude the small part that falls within the Allington Parish boundary. A headline summary of the responses is as follows:
There were 29* submissions received during the initial engagement period. 9 respondents supported the inclusion of the Vearse Farm planning site within the Parish of Bridport. 14 respondents opposed the inclusion of the Vearse Farm planning site or any changes to the Parish of Bridport. 9 respondents referred to other areas currently outside of the parish of Bridport with a request that they be considered for inclusion with the Bridport parish ie Allington, Bradpole, Bothenhampton, Walditch, West Cliff Estate, Pine View, Skilling Hill Road and Watton Park. 1 other referring to the financial contribution made by other parishes to Bridport parish.
* a number of representations included several comments that sit in different categories so the detailed responses do not equal the 29 representation letters received.
Draft recommendations for Consultation
10. The Task & Finish Group considered the responses received to the initial consultation exercise and are recommending that Strategy Committee carries out further public consultation on draft recommendations as proposed by Bridport Town Council to include the land currently forming part of Symondsbury Parish Council including Pine View, Skilling Hill Road and Watton Park as shown marked in blue on the map attached at Appendix B.
11. Whilst the Task & Finish Group acknowledged consultation responses seeking the inclusion of a number of areas within the parish of Bridport, the Page 105 impact of these suggestions would necessitate a great deal more work than can be accommodated within the period set out in the Terms of Reference for the CGR, impacting on several Parish Councils that have not, to date, been directly contacted in respect of this CGR. Specific reference was made to the area of West Cliff that has the river as a natural boundary between Bridport and Symondsbury, and it was felt that the historic connections would need to be investigated more thoroughly than this CGR would allow. It was also felt that to change all of the areas raised in the consultation may impact on the Unitary boundary proposals.
12. The Task & Finish Group felt that the CGR should be restricted to the Vearse Farm planning application site and a small area immediately adjacent to this. However, it should be noted that the Task & Finish Group asked for it to be recorded that their view were not unanimous; 4 Members were in favour of the changes detailed in recommendation a), whilst 2 Members and the Portfolio Holder were in favour of no change, believing that the CGR was premature and that it should be for the future residents of any development on the Vearse Farm planning application site to determine whether they looked to Bridport or Symondsbury as their community.
13. The Members of the Task & Finish Group who supported a change to the parish boundary felt that the submission by the Town Council, attached at Appendix D, set out the rationale for making a change now to include the Vearse Farm site. A number of other properties in Magdalen Lane, Pine View and Watton Gardens were also included that Members felt would become more isolated from the parish of Symondsbury by the proposed development at Vearse Farm – it was suggested that they were already an integral part of Bridport town anyway.
14. It should be noted that the proposal supported by the Task and Finish Group would reduce the electorate of Symondsbury Parish from 871 electors to 658 elections – a reduction of 213 electors that equates to 24.45%. There have been no representations to date about what impact this may have on the viability of Symondsbury Parish Council.
Process and Implementation
15. If recommendations a) and b) are agreed by Strategy Committee, this will be subject to further public consultation for a period of 8 weeks. The responses to this further public consultation will then be considered by Strategy Committee before final recommendations are published.
16. If Full Council chooses to accept the final recommendations of the Review, concluded after public consultation, then a Reorganisation Order will be drafted and this will be published together with the reasons for the changes, making maps available for public inspection. There are also various bodies that must be notified of the changes including the Local Government Boundary Committee for England.
17. If recommendation c) is agreed by Strategy Committee, the Corporate Manager will contact all those responding to the initial consultation exercise to advise them of this decision. Page 106 Implications
Financial 18. There will be a cost of carrying out public consultation of approximately £1000. This will be met from contingency funds as there is no specific budget set aside to carry out community governance reviews.
19. There are no other direct costs associated with the Community Governance Review but there is a cost in officer time in analysing consultation responses, making any required changes to the electoral system and making changes to the Council Tax system and precepting requirements.
20. It should be noted that should changes be made to the Bridport parish boundaries, any difference in precept charged by the parish councils would not be likely to take effect until 2020/21 as the 2019/20 precept will be calculated on the council tax base as it stands in November 2018.
Consultation and Engagement
21. A public engagement and consultation exercise has taken place between 25 April 2018 and 4 July 2018 in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Review agreed by Strategy Committee in April 2018. Comments were invited on how local governance should be arranged in the Bridport area and its surrounds.
22. A further 8 week period of public consultation will take place in respect of any draft recommendations for local governance arrangements agreed by Strategy Committee, again in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Review agreed in April 2018.
Appendices
Appendix A – initial consultation responses. Appendix B - map setting out the area to be moved from Symondsbury Parish to Bridport Parish proposed by the Task & Finish Group marked in blue. Appendix C – map showing the Task & Finish Group’s preferred option for revised parish boundaries for Bridport. Appendix D – Bridport Town Council’s submission for proposed changes to the parish boundary.
Background papers
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England – Guidance on community governance reviews.
Page 107 Footnote
Issues relating to financial, environmental, economic and equalities implications have been considered and any information relevant to the decision is included within the report.
Report Author: Jacqui Andrews, Corporate Manager, Democratic & Electoral Services Telephone: 01258 484325 Date: 21 August 2018 Email: [email protected]
Page 108 Appendix A Number Submission No.1 The consultation about expanding the boundaries of Bridport town is confined to Symondsbury. But other parishes depend entirely on Bridport: Bothenhampton and Walditch are blocks of residential housing with two village halls, no shops or other amenities apart from play areas. How does this differ from Symondsbury including Vearse Farm? Residents have no say in the running of Bridport, but we rely on its services. So shouldn’t we be included? No.2 Try again No.3 I am replying to the invitation to comment on the review of the Bridport Town and Symondsbury parish councils boundaries.
West Cliff Estate is currently part of Symondsbury Parish Council yet is accessed via West Bay and has no direct connection with the Parish of Symondsbury. In spite of contributing about 50% of the income it also receives no benefits at all for this contribution. It would therefore seem sensible to include it in the West Bay catchment area which currently comes under Bridport Town. Also because the West Bay area is separated from Bridport Town by the Bridport bypass A35, it would seem sensible to consider the creation of a coastal parish bounded by the A35, B3157
Page 109 Page and the river Brit. similar to other coastal parishes such as Lyme Bay, Burton Bradstock, Abbotsbury etc. No.4 I think the boundary should be changed to include the area covered by the proposed Vearse Farm development. This would allow the Bridport Town Council to include a precept on the houses in that development to finance the operations in the town which the residents of Vearse Farm would be using. I am a private individual not representing any particular body. No.5 I am a resident of Symondsbury Parish living at XX Brit View Road, West Bay, which is on the Westcliff Estate. I have lived here for three and a half years. I find it hard to understand why an anomaly, such as exists here, has been allowed to occur by previous reviews. We are within the Bridport South ward for District Council and County Council elections but for lower tier elections within the Symondsbury Parish rather than Bridport Town Council’s area.
The West Cliff Estate of some 120 properties is not connected to any other part of the Symondsbury Parish by Public Highway. Once you leave the estate by road you are immediately in the Bridport Town Council area, and is in Bridport that West Cliff residents access services, which are paid for by the Town Council and its council tax payers. The only discernible service provided to residents of the West Cliff Estate by Symondsbury Parish Council is a Council noticeboard.
At election times candidates, electors and even polling clerks are confused as to why the Estate is in Symondsbury and in my time here the Parish Council has struggled to find anyone to represent the ward on the Parish Council, with any co-opted councillor inevitably being from outside the Westcliff Estate. I would submit therefore that in the interests of accountability and to provide the most appropriate link between council taxpayers with the provision of services all of the properties on the West Cliff Estate currently in the Parish of Symondsbury are transferred into the Bridport Town Council area by moving the boundary accordingly. No.6 I support the transfer of those parts of Symondsbury parish that fall within the contiguous built up area of Bridport, plus the land centred on Vearse farm which is due to be developed for housing and employment. All the existing and future residents rely and will rely almost entirely on facilities within Bridport for shopping, leisure, culture, banks and so on.
The same applies to many other parts of greater Bridport that fall within Allington Parish, Bothenhampton and Walditch Parish and Bradpole Parish. The most sensible outcome of this review would be to fully resolve the issue of Bridport’s boundary being hopelessly out of date and to ensure that there will be no need for further reviews within a few years. Allington Parish and Bothenhampton and Walditch Parish should be abolished with their built up areas transferring into Bridport and their more remote areas being transferred into adjoining rural parish councils. Bradpole is a slightly more complex choice. It could be treated in the same way as the other two parishes or if it is to remain separate it would be logical to redraw the boundary so that the Jessop Avenue estate comes in to Bridport and those parts of Bridport to the north of LIDL are transferred to Bradpole since they are contiguous with that village.
Page 110 Page To do the job properly as I have described would be fair to the existing community charge payers within Bridport parish who currently somewhat subsidise those outside who use almost all the same services but pay a much lower precept, typically a third to a half of the Bridport precept. Bringing these residents of greater Bridport in should allow Bridport’s precept to be cut or at worst frozen. No.7 We write in response to the Notices concerning redrawing of the parish boundaries between Bridport Town Council and some parts of Symondsbury, especially in view of the Vearse Farm development. We wholeheartedly SUPPORT Bridport Town Council and hope this transfer can be agreed amicably between the two Councils. My wife and daughter fully support this view, and all three of us are registered Electors. No.8 Since the Vearse Farm development seems to be going ahead despite objections, I consider it imperative that there be a Review of Parish Boundaries. Only this way can residents and commercial enterprises ensure their interests are best represented and/or protected. The development will inevitably increase demand on all Bridport services, especially on the infrastructure of schools, medical services and social services. Parking in the Town, already an issue, will become even more of a nightmare - especially for the disabled. The character of Symondsbury will also be changed. I presume there will be Section 106 arrangements, and these need to be fairly considered. I therefore agree this Review is imperative. No.9 Allington Parish Council wish for their Parish boundary to remain unchanged which will still mean we have a sliver of land that falls within the proposed Vearse Farm development. Allington PC feel very strongly about this and will oppose any thought to do otherwise. No.10 I have seen your web page concerning suggested changes to Symondsbury Parish boundary. I live on the West Cliff Estate in West Bay, and am very much in favour of the boundary being altered so that we became part of West Bay/Bridport. I understand that our Council Tax bill is likely to rise but I think that is a price worth paying in order to be represented by the Council most relevant to us ie Bridport. Being represented by Symondsbury has become a nonsense. No.11 I feel a change in Parish Boundaries to bring the Vearse Farm area into Bridport Parish is logical and makes sense for the following reasons:
The large development at Vearse Farm (760 dwellings, 60 care homes, commercial premises) AND the potential development west of Magadalen Lane (reportedly 190 dwellings) will house people who will be calling on the resources of Bridport Town. Bridport Parish would benefit from receipt of what will be much needed CIL income in order to finance the indirect demands created by these large scale developments on the infrastructure and general Town development. Symondsbury is at present a country parish - it is not (I venture to suggest) geared to managing the impact of such large developments
By the same token I would greatly welcome the West Cliff conurbation at West Bay brought into the Bridport Parish as this would:
Also help fund Bridport’s support to this community whose residents use Bridport’s resources more than Symondsbury Since there is a potential to develop housing on West Cliff (the field at the top of the cliff) then the arguments for
Page 111 Page the Vearse Farm area also apply here. At last the bulk of West Bay would be under one Parish and not suffer from the fragmented Parish Council overview that necessitated the formation of the West Bay Community Forum. (Burton Bradstock is the third Parish in West Bay but only skirts the eastern edge). No.12 I am emailing to register my opposition to the proposal, whereby the Bridport Town Council boundary will encompass (VF) instead of the current combination of Allington and Symondsbury parishes. For the sake of local democracy and accountability the contentious access to VF positioned on APC’s land should remain the responsibility of my local parish councillors and representatives. Resident of West Mead, Bridport. No.13 My opposition to boundary change is council tax could rise under Bridport Council, also the only reason Bridport want change is if V\Farm gets built Bridport Council will get a certain amount of money per house , keep boundary as is now. No.14 I would wish, as an Allington parishioner, to lodge my opposition to boundary changes, involving the scheduled Vearse Farm build, proposed by Bridport Town Council.
I feel that in such a contentious and sensitive area, that falls currently within the southern boundary of Allington Parish Council's domain (south of the B3162), this includes the much publicised entrance /exit to the proposed Vearse Farm housing development. I strongly believe that this should remain as part of Allington Parish Council’s administrative domain, the remainder continuing to be allocated to Symondsbury PC.
West Dorset District Council will no doubt be aware that Bridport Town, and Allington & Symondsbury Parish Councils all voted to oppose the Vearse Farm development on the grounds of the aforementioned poor access from the B3162 to the proposed site. I feel I would be correct in presuming that the proposed boundary change is based on the Town Council’s attempt to garner financial gain from such a change, rather than purely as an administration exercise ?
As an Allington parishioner, I would respectfully insist that no change is made on this strategic issue.
Will the responses from this initial consultation be published on Dorset for You ? Many thanks in anticipation of my objection being upheld. No.15 I would like to register an objection to the proposal.
With so many changes taking place in local government in Dorset I think the whole of the area should be considered rather than what can appear to be an opportunistic land grab provoked by Vearse Farm.
Can we please have a fuller rationale in the public domain and the opportunity for full consultation. No.16 I live in Pine View, currently included as part of the Symondsbury parish but under consideration to be included as part of the Bridport boundary.
Page 112 Page I would like to know why this proposal has even been tabled. The only reason I can see is to charge higher Council Tax from all the additional households on the basis that the Bridport parish charges are higher than those in Symondsbury. If that is the case then our household would pay approximately £150 more per year than we currently do, completely unjustifiably and therefore totally unacceptable.
On that basis I strongly object to the proposals. No.17 I vote for West Cliff to become part of Bridport given the geographical location, use of services and the fact that the ONLY vehicular access is via the West Bay harbor bridge. I would like to propose that the residential part of West Bay known as West Cliff currently the CR area of Symondsbury Parish Council becomes part of the BF area of Bridport Parish – this just makes logical sense. No.18 I’d like to add my support to the proposal to incorporate Vearse Farm into the Bridport boundary. No.19 We are writing to express our views about the consideration to change the boundary and put West Bay into Bridport Town Council. We are both totally opposed and object to the move.
We are very happy with the position as it is now because if we have any problems or concerns it is very convenient to address them to Symondsbury Parish Council as we always have. If seems to us that the only reason Bridport want to change it is to increase their revenue and collect more Council tax from residents of West Bay.
Our council tax is high enough now considering living on West Cliff we are on a private estate so the roads are maintained by ourselves, we have no street lights or street cleaning. We do not receive any money from the county council. Therefore please leave West Bay with Symondsbury Parish Council. No.20 With regard to the proposed changes to the Parish Boundary, I think it is fair to say that the majority of the Symondsbury Parish residents would not be directly affected by these changes. However I consider that the following should be taken into account: What would be the financial effect of losing the revenue from the Skilling area as well as the possible council tax from the new houses proposed for Vearse farm?
I would suggest that the residents of Pine View etc. would have to pay additional tax to the Town Council and the rest of us may also be required to pay more to support the Symondsbury Parish Council.
I believe that these costs should be given fair consideration. No.21 Submission from Bridport Town Council attached separately to the report.
No.22 I strongly object to Bridport Town Council’s proposed takeover areas Verse Farm, Pine View, Watton Park, Skilling Hill Road.
The proposed change would weaken Symondsbury Parish and reduce its ability to support and provide service to its community. Symondsbury Parish Council has successfully over many years provided an excellent service, and value for money.
Whilst under government rules objections can't be based upon financial matters, clearly from the information provided Page 113 Page by DCC on behalf of Bridport, the proposed changes are seen as a way for Bridport to maintain its services from the increased level of precept from the new developments against a back drop reduced government funding.
The parish council has a unique and thorough understanding of its parish and how and what is required, by reducing is size and potential scope would have a major negative impact on its ability to increase its services to the community to which it serves extremely well. No.23 I wish to object to this as there is no merit in the change. Pine View resident. No.24 Symondsbury Parish Council OBJECTS to this proposal on the grounds that it will reduce our population by over third and thus leaving the council less viable. Furthermore, it is considered that such a decision should be postponed until, not only the Unitary Boundary has been concluded, but also the roundabout at Miles Cross has been built and new residents of Vearse Farm be given the opportunity to have their say in where they look to as their local community. We therefore feel this process is premature. Please note that no member of Symondsbury Parish Council voted in favour of this proposal from Bridport. No.25 When the Vearse Farm development is built the focus of the newly formed community will be the parish of Symondbury. As a Symondsbury Parish resident the focus of my community activity falls within the parish boundary. Symondsbury Tithe Barn hosts concerts, craft fairs, fashion shows, dances and weddings. Symondsbury Kitchen is a hub for social gathering with adjacent shopping. Symondsbury School is a hub for young families and the build is used by other local groups. Symondsbury’s The Ilchester Arms is a focus for adult gatherings. Symondbury’s sports field is the cricket ground for the Bridport area. Eype has Highlands End Holiday Park for swimming, sauna and steam room. Highlands End Holiday Park provides a family friendly restaurant for parishioners to enjoy and rooms for holding events e.g. Christmas Markets. Eype Church is a centre for arts, craft and theatre. Eype, Old School Room hosts e.g. yoga, quilters group. Eype, Downhouse Garden Cafe is a hub for locals to socialise in a family friendly environment. I am a keen and very activie Symondsbury allotment holder.
IF I GO INTO BRIDPORT TOWN, I WALK ... PARKING IS DIABOLICAL. THE EXTRA RESIDENTS OF VEARSE FARM WILL CRIPPLE BRIDPORT TOWN CENTRE....THEY WILL GO ELSEWHERE.
The community focus for the residents of Vearse Farm will be the new development and the community spirit and facilities of Symondsbury Parish. No.26 We are writing to object to the request by Bridport Town Council for the Vearse Farm site, Pine View, Watton Park and Skilling Hill Road to be incorporated into Bridport, on the following grounds:
Page 114 Page 1. The request is premature. Although outline planning permission has been granted, the detailed plans for the proposed Vearse Farm development have not been finalised or approved. They are likely to be the subject of controversy, and the approval process may take a considerable time, during which the nature of the proposed development will evolve and possibly change significantly. Until this process is significantly further advanced, it is not possible to form a view as to whether the Vearse Farm development will effectively be a suburb of Bridport, or a village community in its own right. If the latter, it may well be more appropriate for Vearse Farm to continue to be part of Symondsbury. It is of course also possible that the proposed development may not happen, in which case there is no reason for the Vearse Farm site to become part of Bridport. 2. There is already in the Bridport Local Area Partnership a properly established and functioning structure for the town and its adjoining parishes to work together to ensure that local services function well, cost effectively and equitably for all residents of the area in the light of the proposed development. It is not necessary for the Vearse Farm site to form part of Bridport during the planning phase for these issues to be addressed. 3. The proposal to consolidate Pine View, Watton Park and Skilling Hill Road into Bridport has significant implications for the residents of those areas, but also for the parish of Symondsbury, since approximately 25% of the residents of the parish would be moved to Bridport. These implications, and the views of the residents affected, have not been adequately considered. 4. This proposal is being rushed, when there is no need for urgency. It has received little publicity, and is taking place at the same time and being confused with two other important local consultations.
We were pleased to learn that the Symondsbury Parish Council has voted to oppose this request. In the light of opposition from the Council and residents of Symondsbury, we hope that West Dorset District Council will defer consideration of this request until a more appropriate time, and require full consideration of the impact on residents and the parish of Symondsbury before a decision is taken. No.27 I wish to make the following representations about this and closely related matters.
I attended the Bridport town council meeting on 19th June, and spoke as a member of the public to the councillors. The Chairman of Symondsbury parish council was also present at the meeting.
I have lived in Bridport since 2008. Over the past 10 years Bridport town council (BTC) have increased the services that they provide considerably, and with the formation of the Dorset unitary council next spring, that is set to continue and, increasingly so. (Over the past 10 years they have also increased the council tax precept by 79%)
My concern is that this is not just an issue about the parish boundaries, but about who pays for the services that are provided by BTC. The residents of Symondsbury, Allington, Bradpole, Bothenhampton, and even Burton Bradstock make regular use of these services but do not make a financial contribution.
I live in a band F property in BTC, and this year 18/19 my council tax payable to BTC is £299. For the first time, this now more than I have to pay to the soon to be defunct WDDC ( £209)
Band F residents in Symondsbury pay £259 less (£5 per week) than I have to pay to BTC. The corresponding differentials for the other adjacent parishes are Page 115 Page Bothenhampton -£261; Allington -£245; Bradpole -£248, and Burton Bradstock -£235.
So my neighbour, who lives on the opposite side of Burton Road, is in Bothenhampton parish, and he is paying £261 less council tax than myself. How very unfair!
So for me, given the major change happening in April 2019, this is THE TIME to iron out the differentials, and to improve the fairness to residents of BTC.
The BTC councillors were broadly sympathetic to my view, but I got the impression that this in the too difficult column.
How about a charge made every year to the residents of the 5 neighbouring parishes to cover their part of the services that are available to them, but provided by BTC. Surely this would be a better solution, because changing the boundaries between BTC and Symondsbury, will not cure this problem, which is going to be exacerbated, as the services provided by BTC expand (e.g. public toilets are likely to be under the control of BTC by next spring)
Please ensure that this communication get distributed to those councillors and council employees involved in these issues.
I am happy to discuss this further should anyone wish to do so. No.28 Submission: I should like to lodge my objection to incorporating parts of Symondsbury Parish into Bridport Town Council. No.29 I wish to object to the proposal to incorporate parts of Symondsbury Parish into Bridport Parish. Symondsbury is a vibrant parish with a strong sense of community. Its primary school educates over 100 children including many from outside the parish. This engenders a loyal sense of belonging to the parish even in those from outside. Arguably parts of Skilling should be returned to, and parts of Allington transferred to Symondsbury because of this sense of community among those who went to the school and stay part of Symondsbury life!
Symondsbury has two pubs, three further restaurants, two leisure centres and more than half a dozen shops two of which provide local newspapers.
It has three churches, three business parks, two playing fields with sports clubs (Simene and Bridport), and a further two substantial leisure centres (Bridport Leisure Centre and Highlands), a popular beach, a bike skills part, a five mile bike trail and extensive walking paths, both public and private.
Page 116 Page Its vibrant parish council runs popular allotments and recently qualified as a quality council and following a change of parish clerk, shortly will do so again.
Symondsbury is a proud and independent parish. It is reliant upon having a pool of volunteers to staff its local institutions – its Women’s Institute, its Parochial Church Council, its Eype School Room Committee, the Wallbridge Trust, West Cliff Home Owners’ Association and Eypes Mouth Chalet Park Management Company amongst others. It also hosts several medium sized employers. West Dorset Leisure Holidays and Denhay Farms Ltd employ more than 100 employees each and Symondsbury Estate in excess of fifty. All three of these businesses have grown substantially in recent decades and are prize winners in their various fields.
The history of relations with Bridport has been one of fierce independence. The landowners of Symondsbury Village have resisted encroachment by Bridport since World War II by refusing to allow more than minimal development. The parochial church council refused to merge Symondsbury’s three churches with Bridport’s in the 1970s, joining instead with Chideock and latterly with Loders and Powerstock. The school, founded in 1868, refused to close in the 1970s and instead expanded.
The Vearse Farm development represents a good opportunity for the parish to intensify its community spirit and links with the school and two sports clubs. The development is laid out to align with the new road to Symondsbury village along which there are thriving business parks and shops and other community facilities. Symondsbury Estate is a part owner of the Vearse Farm development and so far as is possible intends to integrate parts of it into its existing business. Symondsbury Estate consists of nearly half the land area of the parish and adds value to the life of all residents by creating, itself, a proud sense of community valued by many residents and has strongly supported many of the parish institutions over a long period. To leave a chunk out of the parish and reaching into the heart of the Estate, splitting it in two would be a mistake – an opportunity lost to reinvigorate an already strong local community at a time when such are becoming rarer and an intrusion which would separate the north of the parish from the south.
The proposal put forward by Bridport Town Council is a solution to a problem that does not exist. The Bridport Area Local Partnership, of which Symondsbury parish is a founder member, is held out as an exemplar for the rest of Dorset how parishes can work together. Already by working together many services are delivered, managed by Bridport Town Council and funded with the agreement of the Parishes. This is the cooperative, partnership method which is encouraged at all levels and should be continued. It follows the principle of devolving engagement to the most local level possible yet allowing economies of scale to be involved in delivery of services.
Page 117 Page Symondsbury Parish Council costs little and delivers much and should be encouraged and trusted along with its residents. To do so it needs parishioners and to preserve its sense of identity by not splitting it across the middle and by enhancing and supporting its existing facilities and amenities. If anything is to happen those adjoining parts of Skilling and Allington in which live the Symondsbury diaspora should be added to Symondsbury. This page is intentionally left blank Page 119 This page is intentionally left blank Page 121 This page is intentionally left blank West Dorset District Council Bridport Community Governance Review Submission from Bridport Town Council
1.0 Background
1.1 The Town Council agreed to request a community governance review in respect of the Town Council’s boundary with Symondsbury, bearing in mind the proposed development of up to 800 new dwellings at Vearse Farm.
1.2 The reasons for requesting the review are:
That the residents of the new dwellings at Vearse Farm will look to Bridport town parish for their services and community focus. The main access routes to and from Vearse Farm - vehicle, pedestrian and cycling – provide links to Bridport town centre.
The increased number of residents will increase pressure on services delivered by the Town Council.
The increased number of properties and therefore the tax base would make a significant difference to the Town Council’s ability to deliver services in the town, through the increased income to be raised through the precept. This is particularly important when the Town Council will be delivering more services as a result of Local Government Reorganisation.
To ensure that residents of Vearse Farm are able to participate in the democratic process for the local council - Bridport Town Council - that will deliver services in the town that they will use.
The town boundary has not been reviewed for some time and does not reflect the growth of urban Bridport. In comparison to many other towns in Dorset, Bridport parish covers a much smaller proportion of the urban area (see Appendix A). This is an opportunity to ensure that this further extension of the town is included within the town boundary. If this does not happen, residents of Bridport parish will have to meet the cost of town centre services used by residents in the new dwellings.
1.3 The proposed boundary change being recommended by the Town Council will ensure that the area under review will be reflective of the identities and interests of the community in that area. The proposal will bring about improved community engagement, better local democracy and efficient, more effective and convenient delivery of local services.
Page 123 2.0 Submission
2.1 Bridport urban town centre has grown substantially but the parish boundaries have not been reviewed to reflect that growth. The electorate of Bridport parish is 6624 as at 2018 but the urban electorate of Bridport is more than 10,000. Large sections of Bridport urban area is not in Bridport parish. This contrasts with other towns as shown in Appendix A.
2.2 The boundaries have not kept pace with the spread of housing outside the Bridport parish boundaries. This has a number of implications. The town services that are provided by the Town Council for Bridport are not funded equally through the council tax by all users of those services. All the electors in urban Bridport have an interest in how the town centre is managed and the services the Town Council provides, as they look to the town centre for their work, shopping, leisure pursuits and general community focus. However, they are not able to vote for the town councillors who take decisions on those services and there is therefore a “democratic deficit”.
2.3 This has become even more of an issue as the Town Council has taken on more services and town centre assets in recent years - it now manages nearly all the green open spaces in Bridport and West Bay – and will be taking on more services as the local government reorganisation is implemented. By 2019 it could be managing all the public toilets in Bridport and West Bay and is already managing the Tourist Information Centre. These are services that have been provided and paid for in the past by the District Council tax payers, so would have been funded by electors outside the parish, but this will no longer be the case. The burden for services that are used by the wider area would fall on just the Bridport parish electors. This has implications for the future provision of services and community cohesion.
2.4 The Town Council has a very good relationship with its surrounding parishes. It is working closely with four parishes on a Bridport Area Neighbourhood Plan and also provides services for some of the parishes through its Lengthsman service and also, on behalf of the County Council, undertakes verge cutting in the parish areas as well as the town. Symondsbury Parish Council is part of the Neighbourhood Plan area and also part of the Lengthsman scheme. The Town Council has a very good relationship with Symondsbury Parish Council and has discussed its proposals with the Parish Council.
2.5 The main focus of this review is to ensure that the proposed major development of up to 800 properties at Vearse Farm is brought within Bridport parish. Such a large development will have significant implications for town centre services. The new electors resident on Vearse Farm will look to Bridport town for all their services and community focus. During the planning process for Vearse Farm, large numbers of the public interested in the planning application attended Town Council meetings to make their views known. They recognised the impact it would have on the town centre and the importance of making representations to the Town Council, even though the site is outside Bridport parish.
2.6 The West Dorset District Council boundaries were reviewed in 2014 (the Pine View area was brought into Bridport South District ward). The County Council divisions were reviewed in 2016. The current unitary boundary review recommends that the whole of Symondsbury parish is
Page 124 included within the Bridport unitary ward. There has not been a review of the parish boundaries in Bridport for some considerable time and the boundaries do not reflect the identity and interests of the community.
3.0 Town Council’s Preferred Option
3.1 The Town Council’s request for this review was made to consider the western town boundary next to which it is proposed to build up to 800 new properties at Vearse Farm. The Town Council considers that these additional electors will look to the town centre and services managed by the Town Council for their community focus and that the boundary should be re- drawn to bring the site into the town as below. The further slight extension south to cover Watton Park would regularise the western urban boundary.
3.2. The Town Council’s proposal is to redraw the boundary at this location to bring the areas shaded blue into Bridport parish.
Vearse Farm Development Site for up to 800 houses
3.3 The following properties would move into Bridport: Polling district CM3 including 66 Pine View properties and 24 Magdalen Lane properties. This polling district is currently in the District Council South ward and totals 152 electors.
Vearse Farm 3 properties and 10 electors, Watton Park 27 properties and 43 electors, Skilling Hill Road 9 properties and 8 electors. In total this would be 213 electors.
3.4 This proposal would bring the Vearse Farm site into Bridport parish and also help to regularise the western town boundary. The Town Council also looked at two other options as set out in
Page 125 Appendix B but they were not supported due mainly to the more significant impact on Symondsbury parish.
3.5 This proposal is considered to meet the criteria of the review namely that it will reflect the identities and interests of the community in that area, in view of the interests of the electors in Bridport town centre and that it will be effective and convenient, ensuring that the electors are able to participate in the governance of the town and its services. The inclusion of the additional new electors at Vearse Farm will enhance community cohesion, as will bringing in to Bridport parish those existing electors at Pine View, Magdalen Lane and Watton Park area, as part of the regularising of the western boundary. The proposal will improve community engagement enabling better governance arrangements and improved service provision for the Bridport area and ensure that the increased numbers of electors from Vearse Farm are properly included within the town boundary that will provide services that they will need and use.
4.0 Electorates
4.1 Current Electorate
Number of Electorate Wards Councillors (Electorates) Bridport Town 6624 North:3532 Council 18 cllrs South 3092
Symondsbury 871 1 Parish Council 8 cllrs
4.2 If the boundary change is agreed and prior to Vearse Farm being developed, the electorates would be:
Number of Electorate Wards Councillors (Electorates) Bridport Town 6837 North:3532 Council 18 cllrs South 3305
Symondsbury 658 1 Parish Council 8 cllrs
4.3 At this stage, it is not proposed to recommend a change to the Town Council warding arrangements, as the increased numbers in Bridport South still does not equal the numbers in the North ward – they both have 9 councillors. However, it is recommended that the warding arrangements be reviewed when the Vearse Farm site is complete and the increased electorate is known.
5.0 Recommendation
The Town Council recommends that its preferred option as set out in section 3.0 is approved.
July 2018 Bob Gillis Bridport Town Clerk
Page 126
Appendix A Comparison with other Dorset towns
Dorchester The parish boundary for Dorchester was re-drawn to bring Poundbury within the town boundary
Sherborne Bridport
Shaftesbury
These examples show that the town boundaries of Dorchester, Sherborne and Shaftesbury cover nearly all the urban, populated areas, whereas there are large parts of Bridport urban area in surrounding parishes and not in Bridport parish.
Page 127 Other options considered by the Town Council Appendix B
Extend boundary southwards to West Bay Page 128 Page
This would take in properties in: Pine View – 66, Magdalen Lane - 24 , Vearse Farm – 3, Skilling Hill Road – 5, Watton – 18, Broad Lane – 11, Watton Park – 27, West Bay Fields (Broomhills etc.) – 5, West Cliff – 132
This would take all of polling districts CM3, CR, CS and part of CM1 which would mean around 500 electors.
This would have significant implications for Symondsbury Parish Council, in terms of their overall electorate and was not supported.
Extend the boundary to the A35
Page 129 Page
This would take in properties at:
Pine View – 66, Magdalen Lane - 24 , Vearse Farm – 3, Skilling Hill Road – 5, Watton – 18 , Broad Lane – 11 Watton Park – 27.
This would take all of polling districts CM3 and part of CM1 and CM2, which would mean around 250-300 Electors. This was not supported.
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
Strategy Committee 11 September 2018 Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan – Independent Examiner’s Report For Decision
Portfolio Holder Cllr Ian Gardner - Planning
Senior Leadership Team Contact: S Hill, Strategic Director
Report Author: N Cardnell, Senior Planning Officer
Statutory Authority The various stages for preparing and making a neighbourhood plan are prescribed in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended. More detail is set out in the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, as amended, and the Neighbourhood Planning (Referendum) Regulations 2012, as amended.
Purpose of Report
1 To consider and decide what action to take in response to each of the recommendations (and the reasons for them) in the independent examiner’s report as set out in Appendix A including each of the modifications to the policies and text of the Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan (as set out in the table in Appendix: Modifications to the examiners report) to ensure the neighbourhood plan would meet the ‘basic conditions’ and other legal requirements.
Recommendations
2 The following recommendations are made: a) That the Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan, amended to reflect the recommendations in the examiner’s report (Appendix A) be agreed; b) That a referendum on the amended neighbourhood plan (as set out in Appendix B) is held over the neighbourhood area and is arranged as soon as possible; and c) That a recommendation to ‘make’ the Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan be made to the next Full Council meeting after the referendum, if the results of the referendum are in support of the making of the plan and there are no other issues identified that would go against such a decision.
Page 131 Reason for Decision
3 To progress the Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan to referendum so that pending a favourable vote, the plan can be ‘made’.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 In February 2018 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum submitted the draft Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan and supporting evidence to the District Council. The plan was subject to significant public consultation during its production.
5 Consultation on the submitted draft plan and supporting documents was undertaken between 12 March 2018 and 23 April 2018. An independent examiner, Mr David Hogger, was appointed to undertake the examination of the neighbourhood plan with the agreement of the Neighbourhood Forum. The results of this formal consultation were sent to him.
6 The examiner’s role was to check that the plan meets the ‘basic conditions’ which includes consideration of whether the plan breaches or is incompatible with EU obligations or Convention Rights. In doing so, the examiner has three options:
To conclude that the plan meets all legal requirements and should proceed to referendum; To suggest some modifications to the plan to ensure legal compliance and that the plan as modified should proceed to referendum; or To conclude that the plan does not meet the legal requirements and that it should not proceed.
7 If the examiner recommends that the plan should proceed, he or she must also state the area in which the referendum should be held, which may be extended beyond the area to which the plan applies.
8 The District Council, as the local planning authority, is required to consider each of the recommendations in the examiner’s report and decide what action to take in response to each recommendation.
9 The examiner issued his report on the examination of the Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan to the council on 14 August 2018 (see Appendix A). The report was forwarded to the Neighbourhood Forum for their consideration.
10 The examiner, in his report states that “None of the parties suggest that the NP breaches Human Rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998), and from my independent assessment I consider there is no reason to disagree.” The examiner also raised no concerns with EU Obligations.
11 The examiner made a series of recommendations to modify a number of policies and the text to ensure that the neighbourhood plan would meet the Page 132 ‘basic conditions’ and other legal requirements. In his report, the examiner recommended that:
a. The plan, as modified should proceed to referendum; and b. The referendum should be held over the neighbourhood area only (i.e. the parish of Askerswell)
12 The neighbourhood plan has therefore been amended to include the modifications recommended by the examiner (see Appendix: Modifications to Appendix A), including clearer plan(s) (see modification PM3). It also includes some changes to the formatting (including new sub-headings). The Plan, as amended is included in Appendix B to this report.
13 The intention is for the Neighbourhood Forum to formally agree the changes outlined above at their meeting on 29 August 2018. Confirmation that the changes were duly agreed will be given verbally at the Strategy Committee meeting on 11 September 2018. The Neighbourhood Forum will then be notified of the Committee’s decisions.
14 The referendum will be organised by the Returning Officer of the District Council, with the Neighbourhood Forum, local members and Planning Portfolio Holder being kept informed of the arrangements. It is hoped that the Referendum could be in Autumn 2018.
15 Should the referendum return a positive result, the council must make the plan (bring it into legal force) within 8 weeks of the referendum date unless legal issues arise which are unresolved by the end of this 8 week period.
16 Subject to the result of the referendum and any legal issues, the intention is for the plan to be brought to the next available full council meeting after the referendum with a recommendation that the plan be made.
Implications
Corporate Plan 17 The Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan, once made, will form part of the development plan and will be used when making decisions on planning applications within the Askerswell Neighbourhood Area. It will therefore help to achieve the following priorities: Build strong inclusive and sustainable communities that empower local people to influence and provide the services that matter most to them; Increase the number of new homes built within the district; and Safeguard and provide opportunities to enjoy the natural and built environment now and in the future.
Financial 18 There is a cost associated with holding the referendum. This is estimated as being in the region of £4,000. However now that the examination on the neighbourhood plan has been completed successfully, the District Council will be eligible for a Government grant of £20,000 once a date for the referendum has been set. This will be sufficient to cover the costs associated with the examination and referendum. Page 133 Equalities 19 Part of the role of the independent examiner is to consider whether the neighbourhood plan would breach, or otherwise be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The examiner was satisfied that the neighbourhood plan meets this requirement.
Environmental 20 Part of the role of the independent examiner is to consider whether the neighbourhood plan contributes towards achieving sustainable development. Sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework includes an environmental element and therefore consideration has been given to the environment by the examiner. The examiner was satisfied that the neighbourhood plan meets this requirement and does contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
21 In addition, during the early stages of its production, the neighbourhood plan was subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) screening which looked at the aims of the plan and the environmental constraints in the area. The conclusion of this screening was that a full SEA, to assess potential significant environmental effects, was not required.
Economic Development 22 The examiner has concluded that the neighbourhood plan contributes towards achieving sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development including an economic role and therefore consideration has been given to this aspect of sustainability by the examiner.
Risk Management (including Health & Safety) 23 No risks identified for this stage. Neighbourhood plans will become part of the development plan and therefore this plan will be used in future planning decisions in the parish of Askerswell.
Human Resources 24 The referendum will be organised by Electoral Services. Ongoing support for the plan will be provided by the Local Plans Team.
Consultation and Engagement 25 The independent examiner for the neighbourhood plan has considered the consultation undertaken to date and is satisfied that this has met the legal requirements. The examiner’s report has been published on the District Council’s website and is included in Appendix A.
26 The publicity for the referendum will be in accordance with the Neighbourhood Planning (Referendum) Regulations 2012, as amended.
27 It is important that the District Council is seen to be making timely progress on the stages for which it is responsible, particularly given the amount of local community effort that has gone into the project Page 134 Appendices
Appendix A: Examiners Report, 14 August 2018
Appendix B: Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan, as amended
Background Papers Documents relating to the Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan are available at https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/askerswell-neighbourhood-plan
Footnote
Issues relating to financial, environmental, economic and equalities implications have been considered and any information relevant to the decision is included within the report.
Report Author: N Cardnell, Senior Planning Officer Telephone: 01305 838263 Email: [email protected] Date: September 2018
Page 135 This page is intentionally left blank
Report on Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan 2018 - 2028
An Examination undertaken for West Dorset District Council with the support of the Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum on the February 2018 submission version of the Plan.
Independent Examiner: David Hogger BA MSc MRTPI MCIHT
Date of Report: 14 August 2018
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 1 Page 137 Contents
Page
Main Findings - Executive Summary 3
1. Introduction and Background 3 Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2028 3 The Independent Examiner 4 The Scope of the Examination 4 The Basic Conditions 5
2. Approach to the Examination 6 Planning Policy Context 6 Submitted Documents 6 Site Visit 7 Written Representations with or without public 7 Hearing Modifications 7
3. Procedural Compliance and Human Rights 7 Qualifying Body and Neighbourhood Plan Area 7 Plan Period 7 Neighbourhood Plan Preparation and Consultation 7 Development and Use of Land 8 Excluded Development 8 Human Rights 8
4. Compliance with the Basic Conditions 8 EU Obligations 8 Main Issues 8 General Issues of Compliance 9 National Policy, Sustainable Development and the 9 Development Plan Specific Issues of Compliance 10 The Environment Policies 10 The Community Policy 12 The Business Policy 12 The Housing Policies 12 Other Matters 13
5. Conclusions 13 Summary 13 The Referendum and its Area 13 Overview 14
Appendix: Modifications 15
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 2 Page 138
Main Findings - Executive Summary
From my examination of the Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan (the Plan/NP) and its supporting documentation including the representations made, I have concluded that subject to the policy modifications set out in this report, the Plan meets the Basic Conditions.
I have also concluded that:
- The Plan has been prepared and submitted for examination by a qualifying body – the Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum; - The Plan has been prepared for an area properly designated – the Parish of Askerswell as shown in Figure 1 of the NP; - The Plan specifies the period to which it is to take effect – 2018 to 2028; and - The policies relate to the development and use of land for a designated neighbourhood area.
I recommend that the Plan, once modified, proceeds to Referendum on the basis that it has met all the relevant legal requirements.
I have considered whether the referendum area should extend beyond the designated area to which the Plan relates and have concluded that it should not.
1. Introduction and Background
Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan 2018 - 2028
1.1 Askerswell is an attractive small village within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and it sits very comfortably within its rural setting. In 2011 the population of the village was 184. On my visit, I saw the Village Hall, Parish Church and the Spyway Inn but noted that there is no shop or school. There are areas of public space, including the attractive Washingpool playing field and wildlife area. The NP covers the whole of the Parish, being the designated Neighbourhood Area (Figure 1 of the NP). Askerswell lies within the District of West Dorset.
1.2 The decision to progress a NP was agreed at a Parish Meeting in April 2014. As there is no Parish Council a Neighbourhood Forum (NF) was established (with 29 founder members), the constitution and membership of which was agreed by the West Dorset District Council (WDDC). An appropriate process of consultation and publicity regarding the NP has been undertaken and is summarised in the NP Consultation Report (February 2018).
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 3 Page 139 1.3 The NP provides an overview of the setting and history of the village and summarises the key social and economic characteristics of the settlement. A Vision Statement is set out and a number of Objectives are established, together with the policies that are intended to secure the achievement of those Objectives.
The Independent Examiner
1.4 As the Plan has now reached the examination stage, I have been appointed as the examiner of the Askerswell NP by WDDC, with the agreement of the Askerswell NF.
1.5 I am a chartered town planner and former government Planning Inspector, with considerable experience in the preparation and examination of development plans. I am an independent examiner, and do not have an interest in any of the land that may be affected by the draft plan.
The Scope of the Examination
1.6 As the independent examiner I am required to produce this report and recommend either:
(a) that the neighbourhood plan is submitted to a referendum without changes; or
(b) that modifications are made and that the modified neighbourhood plan is submitted to a referendum; or
(c) that the neighbourhood plan does not proceed to a referendum on the basis that it does not meet the necessary legal requirements.
1.7 The scope of the examination is set out in Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)(‘the 1990 Act’). The examiner must consider:
Whether the Plan meets the Basic Conditions;
Whether the Plan complies with provisions under s.38A and s.38B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) (‘the 2004 Act’). These are:
- it has been prepared and submitted for examination by a qualifying body, for an area that has been properly designated by the local planning authority;
- it sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land;
- it specifies the period during which it has effect; Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 4 Page 140 - it does not include provisions and policies for ‘excluded development’;
- it is the only neighbourhood plan for the area and does not relate to land outside the designated neighbourhood area;
- whether the referendum boundary should be extended beyond the designated area, should the Plan proceed to referendum; and
Such matters as prescribed in the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended)(‘the 2012 Regulations’).
1.8 I have considered only matters that fall within Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act, with one exception. That is the requirement that the Plan is compatible with the Human Rights Convention.
The Basic Conditions
1.9 The ‘Basic Conditions’ are set out in Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act. In order to meet the Basic Conditions, the neighbourhood plan must:
- Have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;
- Contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;
- Be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area;
- Be compatible with and not breach European Union (EU) obligations; and
- Meet prescribed conditions and comply with prescribed matters.
1.10 Regulation 32 of the 2012 Regulations prescribes a further Basic Condition for a neighbourhood plan. This requires that the neighbourhood plan should not be likely to have a significant effect on a European Site (as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017) or a European Offshore Marine Site (as defined in the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 2007), either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 5 Page 141 2. Approach to the Examination
Planning Policy Context
2.1 The Development Plan for this part of West Dorset, not including documents relating to excluded minerals and waste development, is the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – 2015 (LP).
2.2 The planning policy for England is set out principally in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) offers guidance on how this policy should be implemented. Paragraph 184 of the NPPF confirms that the ambitions of a neighbourhood should be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider area1.
2.3 A revised NPPF2 was published during this examination on 24 July 2018, replacing the previous 2012 NPPF. The transitional arrangements for local plans and neighbourhood plans are set out in paragraph 214 of the 2018 NPPF, which provides ‘The policies in the previous Framework will apply for the purpose of examining plans, where those plans are submitted on or before 24 January 2019’. A footnote clarifies that for neighbourhood plans, ‘submission’ in this context means where a qualifying body submits a plan to the local planning authority under Regulation 15 of the 2012 Regulations. The Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan was submitted to WDDC in March 2018. Thus, it is the policies in the previous NPPF that are applied to this examination and all references in this report are to the March 2012 NPPF and its accompanying PPG.
Submitted Documents
2.4 I have considered all policy, guidance and other reference documents that I consider relevant to the examination, including those submitted which comprise: the draft Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan 2018 -2028 (February 2018) that includes Figure 1, which identifies the area to which the proposed NP relates; the Consultation Report, (February 2018); the Basic Conditions Statement, (February 2018); all the representations that have been made in accordance with the Regulation 16 consultation; the Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening Report (September 2016) and the response from West Dorset District Council and the Neighbourhood Forum to the questions set out in my letter of 28 June 20183.
1 See also PPG Ref ID 41-044-20160519. 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 3 View at: https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/planning-buildings-land/planning- policy/west-dorset-and-weymouth-portland-planning-policy/neighbourhood- planning/neighbourhood-plans/askerswell-neighbourhood-plan.aspx Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 6 Page 142 Site Visit
2.5 I made an unaccompanied site visit to the Neighbourhood Plan Area on 3 July 2018 to familiarise myself with the locality, and visit relevant sites and areas referenced in the Plan and evidential documents.
Written Representations with or without Public Hearing
2.6 This examination has been dealt with by written representations. I considered hearing sessions to be unnecessary as the consultation responses clearly articulate the objections to the Plan and present arguments for and against the Plan’s suitability to proceed to a referendum. There were no formal requests for a hearing to be held.
Modifications
2.7 Where necessary, I have recommended modifications to the Plan (PMs) in this report in order that it meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements. For ease of reference, I have listed these modifications separately in the Appendix.
3. Procedural Compliance and Human Rights
Qualifying Body and Neighbourhood Plan Area
3.1 The Askerswell NP has been prepared and submitted for examination by Askerswell NF, which is a qualifying body.
3.2 It is the only Neighbourhood Plan for Askerswell and does not relate to land outside the designated Neighbourhood Plan Area.
Plan Period
3.3 Whilst the period to which it is to take effect is clear from the Plan itself, the Plan should specify that time period, in the interests of clarity, on the front cover. I therefore recommend that the NP be modified by stating the period (2018-2028) clearly on the front cover. (PM7)
Neighbourhood Plan Preparation and Consultation
3.4 The NP Consultation Report (February 2018) sets out the main consultations undertaken and summarises the announcements and progress reports that have been published. For example, meetings of the NF have been held; drop-in events and surveys have been arranged; meetings with appropriate independent advisers have been held (for
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 7 Page 143 example regarding landscape issues); and regular updates have been published in the ‘Eggardon and Colmers View’, which is the local newsletter distributed throughout the neighbourhood. The processes undertaken have been properly documented and the information gathered appears to have been appropriately assessed and considered. The opportunity for the local community and external stakeholders to comment was available at both the Regulation 14 stage and the Regulation 16 stage.
3.5 I am satisfied that all the relevant statutory requirements in the 2012 Regulations have been met, and that in all respects the approach taken towards the preparation of the NP and the involvement of interested parties has had due regard to the advice on plan preparation and engagement in the PPG.
Development and Use of Land
3.6 The Plan sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land in accordance with s.38A of the 2004 Act.
Excluded Development
3.7 The Plan does not include provisions and policies for ‘excluded development’.
Human Rights
3.8 None of the parties suggest that the NP breaches Human Rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998), and from my independent assessment I consider there is no reason to disagree.
4. Compliance with the Basic Conditions
EU Obligations
4.1 The Neighbourhood Plan was screened for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) by WDDC, which found that it was unnecessary to undertake SEA. I have read the SEA Screening Report (September 2016) which in Table 4.2 assesses the likely significance of effects of the NP. Noting that there were no objections from Natural England, Historic England and the Environment Agency in this regard, I see no reason to disagree with its conclusions.
Main Issues
4.2 I have approached the assessment of whether or not the NP complies with the Basic Conditions under two main headings: Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 8 Page 144 - general issues of compliance of the NP, as a whole; and - specific issues of compliance of the NP policies.
4.3 In this section I consider particularly whether or not the NP complies with the Basic Conditions, in terms of its relationship to national policy and guidance, the achievement of sustainable development and general conformity with the adopted Development Plan policies in the LP.
General Issues of Compliance of the NP
National Policy, Sustainable Development and the Development Plan
4.4 The policies in the NP are set out under four main headings: Environment; Community; Business; and Housing. The accompanying Basic Conditions Statement (February 2018) adequately sets out how the NP policies are aligned to national policy and advice.
4.5 The Vision and Objectives for Askerswell are clearly set out and I am satisfied that they appropriately reflect the aspirations of the local community. Emphasis is placed on protecting the setting of the Parish whilst also seeking to retain and improve community facilities. Support is given, in principle, to the provision of a limited number of new dwellings and encouragement is given to the movement of young families into the village. Support is also given to the locally based businesses and workforce.
4.6 The need to secure sustainable development is implicit throughout the NP and I am satisfied that all three dimensions to such development (economic, social and environmental)4 have been taken into account. Subject to the detailed comments on individual policies that I set out below, I conclude that the NP has had regard to national policy and guidance.
4.7 In terms of the Development Plan, the Basic Conditions Statement satisfactorily establishes the relationship between the NP and the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland LP (2015).
4.8 Overall the NP provides a satisfactory framework in order to achieve the stated objectives, as set out at the start of each policy section and, subject to the modifications that I recommend below, I conclude that the NP meets the Basic Conditions. I also consider that the policies (as amended) are supported by suitable evidence, are sufficiently clear and unambiguous and that they can be applied consistently and with confidence.
4 NPPF paragraph 7. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 9 Page 145 Specific Issues of Compliance of the NP’s Policies
The Environment Policies
4.9 It is clear that the natural environment around Askerswell, which is designated AONB, is of great importance to local residents. The emphasis in the NP is therefore correctly placed on protecting and enhancing the landscape qualities of the area. To that end policy E1.1 builds on the policy advice in the NPPF and the LP and in particular seeks to ensure that development in elevated locations is avoided.
4.10 However, paragraph 5.3 refers to the ‘main views’ in the area and suggests that a distance of at least 1km between new structures and the identified viewpoints is retained. I consider that the identification of such views to be too inflexible and lacking in clarity and thus contrary to paragraph 154 of the NPPF. For example, policy E1.2 refers to the ‘enjoyment’ of key views but it is not clear how that should be interpreted by the decision-maker and the views shown on the plan in Figure 5 are represented by single arrows, so again it would be up to the decision- maker to decide on the ‘width’ of any such view. There is insufficient precision in this approach and therefore I recommend in PM1: the deletion of the references to ‘views’ and ‘viewpoints’ in paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4, the deletion of Figure 5 (which attempts to show the views and viewpoints), the deletion of paragraph 5.5 (which provides a more detailed description of the views), and the deletion of policy E1.2 (which seeks to prevent development that would be harmful to the enjoyment of the key views).
4.11 My conclusions on this matter are strengthened by two factors. Firstly, the NPPF confirms that great weight should be attached to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty (paragraph 115). The qualities of the locality are therefore already afforded significant protection. And secondly, I am aware that policy ENV1 of the LP provides protection for the character, special qualities and natural beauty of the Dorset AONB. There is also reference in the LP to avoiding harm to uninterrupted panoramic views. I am therefore confident that there is an adequate policy framework available which will afford appropriate protection to the landscape setting of Askerswell.
4.12 In policy E1.1 it is a requirement that development should ‘maintain’ the qualities of the AONB. A decision maker could have difficulty in assessing whether or not that requirement would be met and I consider that the use of the word ‘maintain’ lacks sufficient clarity. I therefore recommend that
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 10 Page 146 ‘maintain’ is replaced by ‘conserve’ as this would more accurately reflect the advice in NPPF paragraph 115 (PM2).
4.13 Policy E2.1 provides support for the protection of specific features, for example the course of the river, dry stone walls and native hedgerows. The policy also confirms that the removal of existing unsightly features will be taken into account in the consideration of any development proposals. This approach will ensure that the environment will be protected and if possible improved and as such accords with advice in chapter 11 of the NPPF with regard to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. However, WDDC correctly observes that the location of the features referred to is not always clear. To that end the NF, in response to my question of 28 June 2018, confirmed that, in conjunction with the WDDC, it will provide clearer plans identifying the features to be protected and on that basis, I recommend PM3.
4.14 Policy E2.2 confirms that account will be taken of any benefits attained from removing or screening existing visually detrimental features. This approach accords with the requirement to conserve the qualities of the AONB.
4.15 The protection of habitats is a national objective (for example see paragraph 117 of the NPPF) and policy E3.1 seeks to enhance local biodiversity and policy E3.2 requires evidence on biodiversity to be submitted for proposals on some sites which fall below the standard threshold for a biodiversity appraisal (for example, sites which include large mature gardens or roadside hedgerows). Provided any evidence requested is proportionate to the proposal, I do not consider that such a requirement would be unduly onerous or time-consuming and it would enable local biodiversity to be protected and if possible enhanced. The approach in the NP towards the protection of wildlife habitats is justified.
4.16 The emphasis in Policy E4.1 is directed more to the protection and enhancement of the built environment. Whilst this is a valid objective, the requirements could be viewed as unduly onerous for all development. I also consider that it is not necessary to include sub-sections (a) to (e). I consider these to be descriptions of what can already be found in the village, for example in terms of materials and building details, and they add little to the more detailed characteristics which are set out in Table 1 (which is specifically referred to in the policy). As such I recommend in PM4 that the application of policy E4.1 should be ‘where feasible and practicable’ and the deletion of points (a) to (e).
4.17 NPPF paragraph 58 confirms that appropriate innovation in building design should not be prevented or discouraged and I agree with WDDC that a reference to that effect should be included in policy E4.1 and recommend accordingly in PM4. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 11 Page 147 The Community Policy
4.18 The maintenance of a thriving local community is an important objective and in order to achieve it, policy C1 seeks to safeguard community assets. I saw all these facilities and fully accept that their retention, and if possible improvement, is key to ensuring that Askerswell remains a vibrant Parish.
The Business Policy
4.19 Although agriculture is a key economic activity, there are a small number of other businesses in the area and policy B1.1 supports the sustainable growth of existing and new businesses, provided there would be no significant harm, for example in terms of the living conditions of residents. NPPF chapter 3 supports a prosperous rural economy and this is also reflected, for example, in policy ECON8 of the LP. The NP appropriately reflects the established policy approach to the matter.
4.20 In the interests of clarity and precision it is recommended that the word ‘to’ is deleted from the end of the third line of policy B1.1; and that the word ‘and’ replaces the word ‘or’ towards the end of the first line (PM5).
The Housing Policies
4.21 Before considering the individual housing policies it is important to ensure that there is consistency throughout the NP with regard to the level of growth that may be supported. To that end I consider the phrase ‘around 4 to 5 dwellings’ is more appropriate. This provides sufficient flexibility to enable an appropriate small-scale residential scheme to be supported. I therefore recommend (PM6) that the references in paragraphs 1.5, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.6 all be amended accordingly.
4.22 Policy H1.1 provides support for appropriate development to be accommodated within the defined development boundary. At this stage I consider the perimeter of the proposed defined development boundary to be justified because it would ‘allow’ for some development, without risking harm to the character of the village. However, this is a matter which I suggest should be monitored to ensure that the level of growth anticipated does in fact materialise.
4.23 Policy H1.2 supports the re-use of rural buildings for open market housing subject to a number of criteria and policy H2.1 supports the provision of 2 to 3 bedroom semi-detached dwellings (to reflect the demographic profile of the community). Both policies are justified by the evidence.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 12 Page 148 Other Matters
4.24 WDDC has made a number of suggestions regarding the presentation of the NP, for example the use of more sub-headings and the quality of some of the maps. In the main these are not matters for me to make recommendations, in so far as they are not fatal to the clarity of the Plan, albeit the Neighbourhood Forum may nonetheless wish to consider such improvements.
4.25 A small number of representors consider that specific building plots should have been identified, particularly to meet the needs of young local people. I fully understand the need to facilitate the provision of suitable affordable housing but WDDC (in response to my initial questions dated 28 June 2018) confirmed that in principle a rural exceptions site adjoining Askerswell would be supported, subject to a number of criteria and local need being confirmed. There may therefore be an opportunity for such provision to be made.
4.26 Finally, I note a few comments were made regarding the NP preparation process. However, WDDC confirmed (in response to my initial questions) that in its view the NF followed the correct procedures and I have no reason to conclude otherwise.
5. Conclusions
Summary
5.1 The Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan has been duly prepared in compliance with the procedural requirements. My examination has investigated whether the Plan meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements for neighbourhood plans. I have had regard for all the responses made following consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan, and the evidence documents submitted with it.
5.2 I have made recommendations to modify a number of policies and text to ensure the Plan meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements. I recommend that the Plan, once modified, proceeds to referendum.
The Referendum and its Area
5.3 I have considered whether or not the referendum area should be extended beyond the designated area to which the Plan relates. However, the Askerswell NP, as modified, has no policies that I consider significant enough to have an impact beyond the designated Neighbourhood Plan boundary, requiring the referendum to extend to areas beyond the Plan boundary. I recommend that the boundary for the purposes of any future
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 13 Page 149 referendum on the Plan should be the boundary of the designated Neighbourhood Plan Area.
Overview
5.4 Since 2014, when consideration was first given to the production of a NP for Askerswell, it is evident that significant work has been undertaken and in particular, the NF has invested significant effort in the process. The result is a document that is clear and appropriately concise. It is commendable that there is a commitment to an annual review in order to assess whether or not the objectives of the NP are being achieved and to consider the implications of any changes to planning policy at both national and local level.
David Hogger
Examiner
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 14 Page 150 Appendix: Modifications
Proposed Page no./ Modification modification other number (PM) reference
PM1 Pages 12, Paragraph 5.3: Delete from second 13 and 14 sentence: taking into account the main views across the valley from key public vantage points.
Delete all the third sentence: As a guide, new buildings or similar structures should not be visible from a distance of more than 1km from the viewpoints on public roads or paths in order to avoid harm.
Paragraph 5.4: Delete second sentence: The policy wording and selection of important views were developed in conjunction with the landscape advisor of the Dorset AONB partnership and supported by them. The views are provided in Fig 5.
Delete all paragraph 5.5.
Delete Figure 5 on page 13.
Delete policy E1.2 in its entirety.
PM2 Page 14 Amend the start of Policy E1.1 to read: Development should conserve maintain the intrinsic qualities and landscape features of the Dorset AONB and ….
PM3 Page 15 Policy E2.1 – in conjunction with WDDC, prepare and insert a clear plan(s) identifying the landscape and historic features to be protected.
PM4 Page 19 Policy E4.1:
Amend second sentence to read: Particular regard, where feasible and practicable,….
Delete sub-sections (a) to (e) of the policy in their entirety.
Add a new third sentence to read:
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 15 Page 151 However, exceptionally high quality and innovative design will not be discouraged, for example where it would add interest and enhance the character of the area.
PM5 Page 21 Amend the start of policy B1 to read: The sustainable growth and expansion of existing local businesses and or the establishment of new businesses is supported providing such development would not harm to:
PM6 Pages 3, 22 In penultimate sentence of paragraph 1.5: and 23 replace up to 4-5 with around 4-5.
In third sentence of paragraph 8.2: replace about 4-5 with around 4-5.
In second sentence of paragraph 8.3: replace as many as 5 with around 4-5.
In third sentence of paragraph 8.6: replace about 4 or 5 with around 4-5.
PM7 Front Cover Add Plan period: 2018-2028 to the front cover.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 16 Page 152 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2028
Produced by Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum
Page 153 1 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan
Section Page 1: Executive Summary...... 3 2: Introduction…………………………...………………………………………. 4 3: Overview……………………………...... 5 4: Vision: Objectives and Policies……...……………………………………… 11 5: Environment: Objective and Policies……………………………………… 12 6: Community: Objective and Policy…………………………………...……… 19 7: Business: Objective and Policy…………….………………………..……… 20 8: Housing: Objective and Policies…………………………………………... 21 9: Monitoring and Review………………………………………………………. 24
Principal accompanying documents Basic Conditions Statement Consultation Summary The Forum, its Constitution, Agendas and Minutes of its meetings Details of the Neighbourhood Area Strategic Environment Assessment Screening Report Heritage Planning Assessment Ecological Survey
This Plan and its accompanying evidence base and all supporting documents can be viewed and downloaded from the Parish website: (http://www.askerswellparish.org/forum/index.html)
Page 154 2 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan has been developed for the area of Askerswell Parish all of which lies in the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Dorset AONB) in the upper part of the Asker Valley, east of Bridport in West Dorset. The village of Askerswell is listed in the Domesday Book. The Parish has 184 residents according to the 2011 Census, and 138 people are on the electoral register (2017).
1.2 West Dorset District Council (WDDC) as the Local Planning Authority designated the Askerswell Forum as the group to develop a Neighbourhood Plan for this area on 10th February 2015.
1.3 The Neighbourhood Plan has been written to be compatible with the strategic policies of the Local Plan for West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland, as adopted in 2015. Together with the Minerals and Waste Plans, these documents describe what types of development will generally be allowed within the defined area of the Parish of Askerswell. They also provide and justify protection within the area to the natural and built environment. Planning applications should be decided in accordance with these plans, unless material considerations suggest otherwise.
1.4 The Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan has a vision statement that takes full cognisance of residents’ appreciation of living in an exceptional part of the Dorset AONB and the values of the small but cohesive community that is centred on its village. Its distinctive character and level of community pride is evidenced by receiving the Best Small Village in Dorset award four times since 1993 including in 2016. The community envisages only incremental change that perturbs neither the current character of the settlement nor its surrounding landscape.
1.5 The plan defines a number of objectives each underpinned by policies to assure they are achieved. Its Environmental Objective commits to conservation of wildlife in the neighbourhood area, favours enhancing its historic and natural features and envisages that new-build dwellings should respect the scale of those already present including use of traditional materials to harmonise with the current built environment. The environmental policies have been finalised after consultation with the community, the Local Planning Authority, the Dorset AONB team, Natural England, Historic England, the Environment Agency and others. The Plan’s Community Objective is to retain, enhance and support all its essential facilities. They are well used by the community and underpinned by support from an active cohort of volunteers. The Business Objective is to support locally based businesses, comprising of farms, small enterprises (including workshops) plus those employed elsewhere often working from home. Developments of new or existing businesses are supported providing they do not have a detrimental impact on the Dorset AONB or cause undue traffic problems, noise or other disturbance. The Housing Objective aims to conserve the positive nature of the community and favour its continued vibrancy while protecting the historic and natural landscape. The plan does not envisage significant growth, but has defined a development boundary that could accommodate some limited development (estimated around 4-5 new open market dwellings) to take place over the next 10 years to the end of the plan period (2028). Further guidance is provided to ensure such development is in keeping with local character, respects the local heritage, landscape and wildlife features.
Page 155 3 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The area encompassed by the Askerswell Neighbourhood Area is the Parish of Askerswell. West Dorset District Council (WDDC) designated the Askerswell Forum as the group to develop a Neighbourhood Plan (NP) for this area on 10th February 2015. A Neighbourhood Forum was required to take the lead in the absence of a Parish Council (Askerswell has a Parish Meeting) that would otherwise develop the Plan. Details of Forum membership, its Constitution and a record of its meetings are among the submitted documents.
Purpose
2.2 The Localism Act of 2011 provides that planning policy developed by communities be adopted (“made”) by the Local Planning Authority. First a Neighbourhood Plan must pass independent examination and gain majority support in a local referendum. The policies detailed in this document provide a basis for residents to influence new building developments that would require planning consent in the Neighbourhood Area over its life of 10 years from 2018 to 2028.
2.3 The Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan is prepared within the context set by the National Planning Policy Framework. It is credible, justifiable and achievable. It envisages a moderate level of development that is marginally higher than that envisaged in the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan. Recognising the difficulties of living in areas with few facilities, the approach taken in the adopted Local Plan is to strictly control development in rural areas, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the environment and environmental constraints. However the Local Plan does accept that some limited development may be appropriate to meet local needs, and encourages local communities to address specific issues through Neighbourhood Planning.
2.4 This Neighbourhood Plan is designed to be fully compliant with the Local Plan’s strategic objectives and policies. It has also considered the adjoining Neighbourhood Plan for Loders, to ensure that there is a reasonably consistent approach for the rural length of the Asker valley.
2.5 The main basis for the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan was gained from a survey of all in the Parish aged 11 or more in the summer of 2015. The survey had a return rate of 83%. The objectives and policy ideas taken from this survey were then tested in a community drop-in event on 11th June 2016. Those objectives and policies that were clearly supported by at least 75% of the community have been incorporated into this Plan, where possible.
Accompanying documentation
2.6 The following is provided as part of the evidence base for this Neighbourhood Plan:
Basic Conditions Statement This document is a requirement to appraise the extent to which the Neighbourhood Plan Policy: has due regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other national planning policy and guidance;
Page 156 4 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
conforms with the strategic policies of the Development Plan for the area (which is the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan and the Dorset Minerals and Waste plans); and does not breach or conflict, and must be compatible with, EU obligations, and contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Consultation Summary This details the community and wider consultation events and processes that led up to the submission version of the plan. It includes the analysis and key conclusions emerging from the Survey of our community, and the issues raised during the pre- submission stage consultation. The Forum, its Constitution, Agendas and Minutes of its meetings. It also includes a summary of the activity of its Steering Group. Details of the Neighbourhood Area This provides additional detail and evidence on environmental, economic and social indicators for the area underpinning the Neighbourhood Plan. A Strategic Environmental Assessment screening determination. This is a Screening Report that concludes that the Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan was unlikely to have significant environmental impacts and therefore a full SEA was not required. It was drafted with the support of West Dorset District Council, and the conclusions were confirmed by the Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England as the statutory consultees. 3. OVERVIEW
3.1 Location and Description of the Askerswell Neighbourhood Area
3.1 The Neighbourhood Area is the Parish of Askerswell. It lies between the A35 and Eggardon Hill with the main settlement, Askerswell village, centred at OS grid reference SY529927 (Fig 1).
Figure 1: The Parish of Askerswell - the Neighbourhood Plan area. Published as a sub- license of WDW&P Licence No. 100024307/100019690.
Page 157 5 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
3.2 Askerswell village is the only sizeable community in the Neighbourhood Plan area (Fig 2). Responses to the survey indicated 88% have their primary home in the Parish with a further 9% indicating that their primary residence is elsewhere. There are a few outlying farms with up to three dwellings each and they offer most of the relatively few holiday homes in the Parish.
3.3 The Village has a crossroads at its centre. School Lane runs to the North connecting to Spyway Road and then on to Barrowland Lane and through to Toller Porcorum and the A356, and to the South the road is Burrywells becoming the principal road that runs out of the valley along the Portway to the A35 above the village. The other road from the crossroads follows the Asker valley. To the south- east it turns to become a steeply ascending, narrow lane to the A35. To the north- west, it leads from the village (Hembury Road) branching outside of the Parish to the A35 and connecting to settlements further down the Asker valley in Loders Parish and beyond. Some of the dwellings in Askerswell village are close to the fast flowing stream (River Asker), with additional developments around the Church and along School Lane. It has won the Best Small village competition in Dorset 4 times since 1993 including 2016.
3.4 The A35 from Southampton to Honiton passes above the village along the southern edge of the Parish. It is a trunk road between Dorchester and Bridport that is maintained by Highways England and it carries heavy traffic particularly during holiday periods. Askerswell is 12 miles from Dorchester and 4.2 miles from Bridport. There is an hourly bus route (X51) in both directions along the A35 at 0.6 miles from the village centre.
Page 158 6 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan Page 159 Page
Figure 2: Details of Askerswell Village showing the river course, a leat and the locations of a finger post, the Pound, verges and grassed triangles, mature trees, hedge lines and dry stone walls . Listed buildings are also shown (see also Fig 3 A second finger post (not shown) is at the junction of Hembury Road and The Spyway.
7 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
History
3.5 The area of Askerswell Parish has a history of settlement spanning over 4,000 years. There are a number of scheduled monuments - earthworks on Askerswell Down on either side of the A35, a dyke on Haydon Down, a bowl barrow and earthworks to the north of the village on Spyway Road (both of these are on the national ‘at risk’ register), three barrows near Two Gates to the north east of the parish, and the dramatic Eggardon Hillfort to the north.
3.6 The village dates from before or during the early Medieval Period. There are the remains of a post-medieval, shrunken settlement to the West of Burrywells, and historically the village appears to have supported a larger population - the former School opened in 1857 and was enlarged in 1901 to cater for seventy children. It closed in 1965.
3.7 The Neighbourhood Area includes two Grade II* and 14 Grade II listed buildings and four listed tombs in the churchyard. In addition, a number of older buildings, many dating from the c19, have been identified by the community as contributing to the character of the village (Fig 3).
3.8 The most iconic view is of the Parish Church of St Michael & All Angels from public footpaths, on higher ground either side of the valley, also from the A35 and the approaches from Eggardon and beyond.
Figure 3: 1888/9 historic map with interesting historic buildings shown. Published as a sub- license of WDW&P Licence No. 100024307/100019690.
Page 160 8 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan Environment
3.9 Most of survey respondents agreed that the unspoilt countryside (Fig.4) was important to them (92%) and they appreciated the peaceful and safe environment (98%). Many of our residents have environmental interests and seek to protect our environment within the Dorset AONB.
3.10 Much of the area lies within a Wooded Hills landscape character area known as the the Powerstock Woods, changing to Chalk Ridge / Escarpment (West Dorset) on the higher ground to the east (Fig 5). The following descriptions are taken from Landscape Character Assessment & Management Guidance for the Dorset AONB published by the Dorset AONB partnership in 2008.
3.11 “Along the valley bottoms, dense hedgerows and small scale regular pastures are surrounded by small damp neutral meadows and patches of rush with small wet woodlands. Clustered settlement patterns of stone villages (golden limestone and thatch) are connected by a network of narrow winding lanes, with an intimate and tranquil quality confined by the surrounding steep hills”.
3.12 “The slopes around Askerswell are noted as being particularly steep with extensive open grasslands south of Eggardon Hill. Along the top of the ridge views are extensive, particularly from the imposing Eggardon Iron Age hillfort. Along the slopes, the rounded spurs and deep coombes, textured soil creep, patches of scrub and unimproved grasslands add to the ecological interest. Towards the lower slopes, the ridge becomes more intimate with irregular field patterns leading towards a series of wooded springline villages and intimate, winding rural lanes”.
Page 161 9 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
Page 162 Page
b c a
Figure 4 Main environmental constraints. a) scheduled monuments, ancient field systems and public rights of way within the Plan area; b) details of the two flood zones in the regions of the defined development boundary. The perimeter of b) is shown on a) in brown; c) Ecological networks, existing (green shading) and potential (orange shading) within the Neighbourhood Area (yellow border). Published as a sub-license of WDW&P Licence No. 100024307/100019690
10 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
Figure 5: Extract from Landscape Character Assessment & Management Guidance for Powerstock Woods area (2008).
Summary of Key Social and Economic Characteristics
3.13 Askerswell had 184 residents according to the 2011 Census. A total of 138 are on the current electoral register with 27 below voting age and the remainder either not registered to vote or registered elsewhere. Demographic analysis of the 2011 Census data suggests that Askerswell Parish has slightly fewer children (under 19 years of age) and fewer adults in their 20s and 30s than characteristic of West Dorset as a whole, with a correspondingly higher proportion of adults in their 50s and 60s.
Business activity
3.14 The main activity is agriculture with 7 working farms, additional land rented out and some diversification including equine-based activities and the provision of self- catering accommodation. There are also three wood working businesses and the Spyway Inn. Several owners of local business live within the Parish and others work often on a part-time basis from home providing professional, scientific and technical services.
Housing
3.15 In 2011 the Census recorded 71 households living in 79 properties, most (83%) of which were owner occupied. 11% were second homes, and the average house price (median Land Registry based on sales 2011 - 2017) was £365,000, significantly above local and national averages. There have been no new dwellings permitted or built during the last 15 years.
Page 163 11 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan 3.16 Some 71% of dwellings are detached houses or bungalows (this is significantly higher than the West Dorset average of 37%) and nearly 2 in 5 (37%) of all homes had 4 or more bedrooms (again higher than West Dorset average of 23%).
3.17 At the time of writing this plan (2017) there were no households registered for affordable housing with a local connection to the parish. This does not necessarily indicate that there is no need for affordable housing, as it could be that there is no expectation of affordable housing becoming available, or that people in housing need have looked to nearby Bridport (with its wider range of facilities and employment opportunities and affordable housing stock) as their first choice.
Community Facilities
3.18 The main community facilities within the parish are Askerswell Village Hall and St Michael & All Angels Church. The Spyway Inn is an important meeting place that also organises a range of events for the community. Volunteers maintain two main public spaces; i) Washingpool playing field, pond and wildlife area and ii) the Village Hall Grounds. There is a community notice board, post box and telephone box at the crossroads.
Services and Utilities
3.19 Most properties in the Parish have mains sewers, water and electricity. Mains gas is not available but most properties have oil and a few liquid propane gas. Several properties have renewable energy sources particularly solar panels.
3.20 Askerswell was added to the Superfast Dorset roll-out plans for broadband in 2017.
Crime
3.21 Few incidents are reported from the community which has a Homewatch representative who reports to all Parish Meetings. The Police also provide information to the Clerk of the Parish Meeting.
Transport and Travel Patterns
3.22 The responses of 122 local residents who replied on transport in the survey establish 75% of residents’ journeys from the village to work or for other purposes are by car, van or motorcycle, 7% by public transport or taxi with a further 11% working from home or walking to work. The 2011 Census indicated that only 1 household was without a car or van. Most households (61%) had 2 or more cars - significantly higher than the West Dorset average (39%).
4. VISION, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Vision Statement
4.1 The following vision statement is derived from community views including those expressed in response to the Parish Survey and the drop-in consultation meeting (11th June 2016). The Forum also considered insights gained from an open question and answer evening with two planning experts (25th November, 2015),
Page 164 12 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan advice from three landscape architects from West Dorset District Council and the Dorset AONB and the Dorset county archaeologist.
4.2 The survey of local residents established that over 90% of the responders agree or strongly agree that the unspoilt countryside and the peaceful and safe environment were important to them. In addition 86% also value having a say in Parish matters.
4.3 The Forum is committed to delivering a Neighbourhood Plan that is consistent with the opinions of the majority in the community.
Vision statement The residents of Askerswell Parish value living in an outstanding part of the Dorset AONB and appreciate the small but cohesive community centred on its village. The community envisages only incremental change that has neither any significant adverse effect upon the current character of the settlement nor its surrounding landscape. It seeks development for a limited number of additional residents that wish to share the current benefits of the settlement and the nature of its environment.
The community has the ambition to encourage young families into the village whilst ensuring negligible impact on the important landscape, heritage designations and considerable biodiversity.
5. ENVIRONMENT: OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES
Environmental Objective Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect all of our countryside, which is fully within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Dorset AONB). The plan is committed to conservation of wildlife in the Neighbourhood Area. In addition, it favours enhancing our historic and natural features. It envisages that new-build dwellings should respect the scale of those already present and use traditional materials to harmonise with our current built environment.
Parish and Planning Context
5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) values “protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity”.
5.2 The Neighbourhood Plan has also taken consideration of the Environment Policies in the Local Plan. In drawing up a tightly defined development boundary and providing design guidance, it has ensured that development is located and designed so that it does not detract from the local landscape character. The Neighbourhood Plan does not include any proposals that would have any significant adverse effect upon the two Sites of Special Scientific Interest or other locally designated wildlife sites or priority habitats in West Dorset (e.g. Alder woodland). In defining this plan, the Forum has taken full note of the wishes of a sizeable majority
Page 165 13 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan of our community to conserve the special nature of the Parish set in an outstanding part of the Dorset AONB. The plan therefore envisages a level of development consistent with protecting that environment and not likely to harm the heritage context of the concentration of listed buildings near the Church or elsewhere in the Parish.
Environmental Policies
Protection of Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 5.3 Policy E1 seeks to ensure any development is without detriment to the Dorset AONB. In particular it seeks to ensure that new development is not visually intrusive by avoiding locations that are likely to be highly visible within the landscape.
5.4 The policy also encourages the use of landscaping (which should be appropriate to the landscape character of the area) and the potential to co-locate development alongside existing buildings, to further reduce the impact of new development in what is a very rural landscape.
Policy E1: Protection of Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty E1.1 Development should conserve the intrinsic qualities and landscape features of the Dorset AONB and make provision for any landscaping sufficient to mitigate harm. Isolated and elevated locations should be avoided, by siting development alongside roads and close to other existing buildings.
Protection of Special Landscape and Historic Features 5.5 Policy E2 seeks to ensure any development has no detrimental impact on the distinctive landscape of the neighbourhood plan area and underpins protection of its key features that have been identified from the various appraisals and public consultations. Historic features by their very nature are unlikely to be replaceable, and their loss should therefore be avoided. Other landscape features such as trees should be retained where possible, and replacement planting secured if retention is not feasible.
Policy E2: Protection of Special Landscape and Historic Features E2.1. Development that allows for the retention and enjoyment of the following features and their settings will be supported: a) The attractive river course with its mill leats and tributaries b) The distinctive landscape formed by Eggardon Hill and its southern slopes, and the downs within the Neighbourhood Area c) The ancient field systems and medieval strip lynchets d) The Bronze and Iron Age earthworks, sites with remnants of Roman occupation and all scheduled monuments in the area e) The historic dry stone walls, including their vegetation where present f) The network of rural paths (that are part of the public rights of way network) and rural character of the lanes - with their distinctive banks and hedges, traditional wooden fingerposts, and the grassed triangles and verges at road junctions g) The Pound
Page 166 14 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan h) The dense native hedgerows, small damp meadows and irregular pastures, unimproved grasslands, orchards, wet woodlands and mature broad-leaved trees. Development resulting in the loss of irreplaceable features should be avoided. Mitigation to minimize the degree of any loss or harm should be secured if retention is not feasible. E2.2. The benefits of removing or screening existing detrimental features, such as modern unsightly design elements and overhead wires, are to be taken into account in assessing any development proposals.
Protection of Wildlife Habitats 5.6 Many in our community have an interest in the rich biodiversity present in the Neighbourhood Plan area and seek to ensure this is conserved and when possible enhanced as guided by the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol. The dense hedgerows, mature trees, stream corridors, wet woodlands and unimproved grassland, compost heaps and old barns are all habitats that can support a range of protected species. As a matter of course the Local Planning Authority requires a biodiversity appraisal by a suitably qualified ecologist for all development on sites over 0.1ha in size, and for the conversion or demolition of rural barns / farm buildings and other derelict structures. However we would encourage developers to take advice from a suitably qualified ecologist on sites below this threshold, where there is reasonable possibility that there may be some biodiversity interest on or close to the site. Early knowledge of potential nature conservation interests can ensure that development proposals include suitable avoidance or mitigation measures, rather than having to revise plans because a protected species is first noticed when construction is about to start.
Policy E3: Protection of Wildlife Habitats E3.1. Development proposals should seek to protect, and where appropriate enhance, local biodiversity. The provision of wildlife corridors and buffer areas to protect habitats, and the provision of new biodiversity features such as the erection of boxes in suitable locations for barn owl, little owl, kestrel, bats and passerine birds, will be supported. E3.2. On sites below the standard thresholds for a biodiversity appraisal, applicants will submit (as a minimum) an initial scoping / feasibility appraisal that identifies ecological aspects or considerations, where the proposed development site includes or is adjoining a large, mature garden mature trees woodland field or roadside hedgerows river floodplain meadow / species-rich grassland orchard agricultural barns and similar rural buildings.
Protection and Enhancement of the Character and Appearance of the Area 5.7 The Neighbourhood Plan area is exceptionally attractive and the community is highly committed to maintaining this status. The older buildings, both Listed and unlisted, provide a strong local identity and interest. The localities of four areas (A-
Page 167 15 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan D) of such key buildings are shown in Figure 6. They include the following buildings: 1, Stonebridge*; 2, Sherwood Cottage; 3, Knapp Cottages; 4, Askers House*; 5, Fir tree cottage; 6, The Old School House; 7, Candida; 8, Rose Cottage; 9, Medway House; 10, Millstream Cottage and 11, Grey Cottage (* Grade II listed buildings). These have been specifically identified to assist in the understanding of the form and type of buildings that reflect the distinctive local character of the Neighbourhood Area.
5.8 Part of the distinctive character of Askerswell Village is the range of architectural styles evident among its older buildings including those that are listed. This character can be potentially enhanced by new buildings which reflect the scale, materials, fenestration pattern and detailing of these older buildings, through high quality traditional or contemporary designs appropriate to this rural location.
5.9 Table 1 captures the key characteristics that form the basis of more detailed design guidance. The Neighbourhood Plan favours all current or future technologies that support sustainable energy production that would be compatible with the general policy requirements.
Page 168 16 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
Figure 6. Map showing four clusters (A-D) of 11 older buildings identified to assist in the understanding of the form and type of buildings that reflect the distinctive local character of the Neighbourhood Area. Published as a sub-license of WDW&P Licence No. 100024307/100019690.
Page 169 17 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
Table 1: Key characteristics that form the basis of more detailed design guidance Layout Buildings are generally built fronting onto and parallel with the street, in a variety of irregular plot sizes. Clearly visible estate layouts (off a cul-de-sac type layout) and other forms of suburban-style development should be avoided. Scale and Variety of building forms reflecting modest farm cottages, grander houses and form farmsteads Materials Local limestone or brick walls are prevalent and should match materials used and historically (based on the sample of older buildings). There are local examples finishes: of coursed and rubble work, with some Hamstone dressings, more commonly brick quoins and gauged arch brick heads to windows and doors under thatch, slate and clay tile roofs with stone gable copings evident on grander houses. Pointing should be lime rich, contrasting with the surrounding masonry and finished flush with the wall surface and fully pointed to random rubble walling. Where render is appropriate, as at Spyway Cottage, this should be self- coloured, lime rich, and reflect the ‘soft, warm’ naturally occurring pigments for example yellow ochre or raw umber. Roofs Thatch, clay tiles and natural indigenous slate roofs are preferred. A maximum roof span of 6 metres between external walls is recommended. The pitch of slate between 30 - 43 degrees, clay tiles 40 degrees and both can be laid much shallower, but where thatch is used, a steeper pitch of not less than 50 degrees is standard. Flat roofs, imported slates or bright terracotta roof tiles would not be appropriate. Chimneys As most properties in the neighbourhood area have chimney stacks, the Neighbourhood Plan does not oppose their inclusion in any new dwelling. New buildings of traditional design should include a conventional, well proportioned chimney stack, constructed of red brick with terracotta pots. Stainless steel flues should not be visible from public viewpoints, but where these appear on the principal frontage they should be painted black. Doors and Timber doors are generally appropriate, of a size in keeping with the scale and Porches period of the building. Porches, open or enclosed, should be in keeping with the style and proportions of the building. Most porches are either of thatch or simple timber structures with slate. Windows Arrangement of openings will depend on a number of criteria including orientation, energy efficiency and security. New windows shall be compatible with the proportions of the building, simple casements with central glazing bars are common in new buildings. On older properties, two types of window survive; multi-paned timber or iron casements and timber vertical sliding sashes. With casement windows the opening and fixed lights should be of equal proportions. The non-opening light glass should be inset in the same style as the opening light glass. Sash windows should have slender moulded glazing bars and panes of glass which are rectangular rather than square. The use of UPVC is discouraged on older buildings, since timber windows have proven longevity. Care should be taken to select a design in harmony with the established fenestration pattern. It is generally more appropriate to paint window frames (or UPVC) in preference to leaving timber untreated, varnished or stained. There are relatively few dormer windows built into roofs in the village and they are considered generally inappropriate. Rooflights can be inserted into the rear roof pitches of buildings, provided they lay flush with the plane of the roof. Gates and Apart from those on farms, gates are predominately a 20th century feature. If boundaries used appropriately they can positively contribute to the appearance of individual properties and in the wider context the appearance of the village. Traditional limestone walls and indigenous hedging is the predominant boundary treatment. There are good examples of stone walls, with copings or with cock & hen detailing.
Page 170 18 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
Policy E4: To Protect and Enhance the Character and Appearance of the Area E4.1 All proposals for built development (including new buildings and extensions / alterations to existing buildings) are to be sensitive to adjacent buildings and reflect and contribute positively to the distinctive local character of the Neighbourhood Area. Particular regard, where feasible and practical, should be paid to the key characteristics set out in Table 1 and the buildings identified in Figure 6 that provide a strong local identity and interest. However, exceptionally high quality and innovative design will not be discouraged, for example where it would add interest and enhance the character of the area.
5.10 The aims of all these environmental policies are to guard against harmful effects on our environment and its biodiversity. The Forum will raise awareness through the Parish Website and meetings of the need to maintain the landscape and historic features that are such an important part of the area’s heritage. If the Forum identifies that key features are likely to be lost or degraded, advice will be sought from relevant organisations such as Dorset AONB, Dorset Wildlife Trust and Dorset County Council’s Historic Environment team. Projects, such as replacement tree planting, may be feasible and potentially provide compensatory measures elsewhere.
6. COMMUNITY: OBJECTIVE AND POLICY
Community Objective Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan prioritises ensuring our facilities are retained, enhanced and supported. The wide range of our activities testifies to the vibrancy of our community and their value to us and others from the surrounding areas. We have an active cohort of volunteers who support our facilities and activities.
Safeguarding Community Assets 6.1 The community is extremely friendly and sociable, with much voluntary effort to enhance the living experience of all residents. Our facilities are essential to maintain this level of interaction and co-operation. The location of the main facilities are shown on Figure 7.
Policy C1: Safeguarding Community Assets Community assets (listed below) are to be retained where possible, and every effort is to be made by all involved to investigate potential solutions to avoid any unnecessary loss of these valued assets. Development proposals that allow such facilities to modernise and adapt for future needs are encouraged. Community assets are: i Askerswell Village Hall, including its grounds and associated parking spaces ii St Michael & All Angels Church and church yard iii Spyway Inn iv Washingpool playing field, pond and wildlife area v The grassed areas located on the main crossroads within the village (known as The Square) which contain a seating area, the community notice board, telephone kiosk and post box.
Page 171 19 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
Figure 7: Community Assets Map (outlined in orange), see Policy C1 for details. Published as a sub-license of WDW&P Licence No. 100024307/100019690.
Page 172 20 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan
7. BUSINESS: OBJECTIVE AND POLICY
Business Objective Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan seeks to support our locally-based businesses and workforce, including farms, small enterprises (including workshops and those working from home). Key to this is community demand for improvements to communications and services (e.g. Broadband and mobile phone reception). Business developments are supported providing they do not cause undue traffic problems, noise or other disturbance.
Local Employment and Business 7.1 The main economic activity in the area is agriculture with seven working farms, and some equine-based activities. There are also three wood working businesses, some self-catering holiday accommodation, and the Spyway Inn. Several owners of local businesses live within the Parish, and others work often on a part-time basis from home providing professional, scientific and technical services.
7.2 Our community is supportive of all our rurally-based businesses and their further development. This may include the modernisation of existing or redundant premises, to provide suitably flexible or bespoke workspaces with better access to any necessary infrastructure such as Superfast Broadband connection that is important for business development. However the economic benefits will need to be balanced against possible harm to the area, taking into account its landscape character and importance, the inadequacy of local roads to cater for significant volumes of traffic (particularly HGVs) and the generally quiet amenity enjoyed by local residents. The following policy should be read in conjunction with the Local Plan policies for employment in the countryside.
Policy B1: Local Employment and Business B1.1. The sustainable growth and expansion of existing local businesses and the establishment of new businesses is supported providing such development would not harm; • the Dorset AONB or the distinctive rural character of the area, or • the living conditions and amenities of residents, or • the character and safety of our narrow roads through increased traffic.
8. HOUSING: OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES
Housing Objective Askerswell Neighbourhood Plan aims to conserve the positive nature of our community and values limited new dwellings to underpin its continued vibrancy providing they are consistent with continued protection of our landscape.
Page 173 21 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan Context
8.1 The community view of the extent of new home development that this plan envisages was established by a community survey in the summer of 2015 and a drop-in event in June 2016. It established that 67% of respondents favoured new dwellings within the village or on land adjacent to its current houses. To some extent there is unlimited demand for housing, given that West Dorset attracts many people to the area, and Askerswell is a beautiful rural location close to the shops and services found in the nearby town of Bridport. The housing market remains buoyant (although largely unaffordable to many) and there are few vacant properties. However, whilst additional residents should help sustain the community spirit, unlimited growth would ultimately change the rural nature of the village and perpetuate less sustainable patterns of living.
8.2 In Askerswell the Local Plan allows for new housing through the subdivision of existing homes, the re-use of rural buildings (subject to certain restrictions) and new-built affordable housing to meet a demonstrated local need. At the time this plan was prepared, there was little prospect of these possible sources bringing forward any new housing. If a modest number of additional homes was to be encouraged (and feedback from local residents suggests that an increase of around 4-5 new dwellings would be supported, ideally of a modest size and affordability that would off-set the predominance of large and less affordable open market homes), then this Neighbourhood Plan had to consider relaxing the current restrictions in some way. In the adjoining community, Loders Neighbourhood Plan had introduced a defined development boundary to enable a limited amount of new development, and such an approach seemed equally suitable for Askerswell.
8.3 There is no definite number to the total of new dwellings to be built in Askerswell set in this plan or the Local Plan. The following policy should enable around 4-5 new open market dwellings to be built in addition to conversions and affordable housing that could otherwise come forward, and that this level of growth is something that most local Residents would support (although inevitably some would prefer less change, and others would prefer to see more change). Such an increase would not place appreciable added demand on local infrastructure, can be accommodated without harming the environment, and would enable our long-standing settlement to continue to thrive.
Location of Housing 8.4 In establishing the most appropriate location for development within or adjoining the village, the area along Nallers Lane close to St Michael and All Angels church was ruled out at an early stage, because of the likely adverse impact on the many heritage assets. Another key factor was the need to avoid harm to the landscape character, and therefore locations visible in long-distance views were also ruled out on the advice of Dorset AONB and West Dorset District Council landscape experts. Flooding was another factor that needed careful consideration. The River Asker flows through the village and the local topography can give rise to surface water / sheet flooding. Consequently, surface water connections will not be permitted to the foul system to avoid sewer flooding to downstream property. Any sites being promoted must provide a satisfactory outfall through infiltration arrangements or disposal to local land drainage systems.
Page 174 22 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan 8.5 A defined development boundary (DDB, Fig 8) is a well-recognised planning tool which is used to establish the general area within which development is likely to be acceptable in principle, although the acceptability of any proposal will still depend upon details design and layout, and site-specific issues. This was considered to be the most effective means of allowing the limited desired development in the community without compromise to our wider environment. Outside of the DDB, the more restrictive policies aimed at avoiding isolated development in the countryside, will continue to apply, although a slight relaxation in the current restriction on the re- use of rural buildings (that stops such conversions from being sold separately on the open market) is also included, that will mean that it would be possible for the holiday home restrictions to be lifted, allowing such homes to be occupied by local residents year-round. The Neighbourhood Plan supports application of those with current holiday let restrictions on 12 month occupancy but it is for current or future owners to re-negotiate section 106 agreements.
8.6 Initially, a development boundary was suggested which would potentially allow a much larger number of new dwellings than the community supported and result in harm to the AONB and the character of the village. It was therefore refined to a smaller area. The revised boundary would allow some new development to come forward, potentially providing around 4-5 new dwellings to be built in addition to that which would be permitted through the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan policies (for example through rural exception sites for the provision of affordable housing or the re-use of existing buildings).
Figure 8: Defined Development Boundary (red line). Its southern and western edge runs along Parsons Lane and School Lane respectively. Published as a sub-license of WDW&P Licence No. 100024307/100019690.
Page 175 23 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan 8.7 It should be noted that the following policy does not over-ride other policies that seek to safeguard the special characteristics of the area or avoid potential harm, including those relating to landscape, heritage, ecology, flood risk, road safety and residential amenity.
Policy H1: Location of housing H1.1. Within the defined development boundary (shown on Figure 8), residential, employment and other development to meet the needs of the local area will normally be permitted. H1.2. The adaptation and re-use of rural buildings for open market housing outside of the defined development boundary will be permitted where all of the following apply: • the building adjoins an existing road and is not in an isolated location where substantial new infrastructure would be required • the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction and was in existence in 2011, and • the building and any alterations proposed make a positive contribution to the character of the area and would not be substantially rebuilt or extended.
Size of new open market dwellings 8.8 Our community-wide survey identified the ambition for limited further development, with an emphasis on more modest homes (such as a pair of semi-detached cottages) that would make efficient use of land and provide a more balanced housing mix and help adjust our demographic profile closer to that which characterises West Dorset as a whole. A large detached house, on a site which could readily accommodate 2 modest-sized starter or family homes, would not be appropriate.
8.9 Affordable homes - which could include starter homes, shared ownership as well as affordable and social rented accommodation to meet a demonstrated local need will also be supported, and could come forward as an affordable housing exception site on land adjoining the settlement (i.e. outside of the defined development boundary but within the context of the wider village environs).
Policy H2: Size of new open market dwellings H2.1 Where feasible, the provision of 2 to 3 bedroom semi-detached cottages should be supported as a dwelling type and size appropriate to the intended shift in the demographic profile of the community. The size of new open market housing will need to respect the character of the area and amenity of adjoining buildings, whilst making efficient use of land.
9. MONITORING AND REVIEW
9.1 This Neighbourhood Plan provides a planning policy basis for decisions for the period of 10 years after it is “made”, up to 2028.
9.2 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum is constituted for five years from its designation date of 10th February 2015. Before the end of this period, it may seek an extension
Page 176 24 Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum: Neighbourhood Plan for a monitoring role from the Local Planning Authority. If or when the Forum ceases, any local monitoring will be transferred to Askerswell Parish Meeting.
9.3 Once this Neighbourhood Plan comes into effect, Parish Meetings will be held to assess and comment on planning applications made within the Parish in terms of their consistency with this Neighbourhood Plan. Developers are encouraged to undertake pre-application consultation and can contact the Forum (or in its absence, the Parish Meeting) for advice on how best to engage with the local community.
9.4 The Neighbourhood Plan will be reviewed annually to consider whether it is achieving its objectives and to take account of changes to either national or local authority planning policies that impact on the Neighbourhood Plan. An update report will be prepared by the Forum Chair, reviewed by its members before presentation to a Parish Meeting and placement on the Neighbourhood Plan section of the Parish Website. The main aims of this annual monitoring will be:
1. To review whether planning decisions are being made consistent with the policies of this Neighbourhood Plan, and understand what material considerations may be giving rise to a different decision; 2. Identify if there is a need for re-assessment and/or review ANP’s objectives and policies; 3. Liaise with statutory bodies with interest in our built or natural environment if mitigation measures need to be identified; 4. Ensure the community remains appreciative of relevant issues covered by the Plan. Askerswell Neighbourhood Forum, 12/02/2018 Amended Post Examination 30/12/2018
Page 177 25 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10
Strategy Committee 11 September 2018 Beaminster temporary parking concession For Decision
Portfolio Holder Cllr John Russell
Senior Leadership Team Contact: M Hamilton,Strategic Director
Report Author: N Keyworth-Wright Parking and Transport Manager
Statutory Authority The West Dorset District Council (Off Street Parking Places)(Consolidation) Order 2016
Purpose of Report
1 To inform councillors of the current issues facing businesses in Beaminster and to consider offering temporary parking concessions
Recommendations
2 Strategy Committee is recommended to:
(a) Introduce a temporary suspension of short stay charges in Yarn Barton Car Park to support local businesses during the current disruption;
(b) Delegate to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Environmental Protection & Assets Portfolio Holder, authority to extend this concession either in time or location as further information regarding the disruption to local businesses becomes available.
Reason for Decision
3 To show support for small businesses in Beaminster
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 On 18th August 2018 an attempt was made to steal a cashpoint machine in Beaminster. A telehandler was driven into the former bank building which caused substantial structural damage. The area affected has been cordoned off and temporary traffic lights and one way systems have been put in place. Significant work is required to remove the damaged area and effect repairs. Page 179 5 The traffic restrictions in place have required the cordoning off of the road side part of The Square car park. It is anticipated that once the road is reopened to two way traffic, The Square car park will be required to provide the required road width. This area may also be required for works storage and equipment.
6 Visitors to the area are being put off by the appearance of restricted parking and the traffic controls. This has had a negative effect on local shops and businesses. At a meeting with the local business owners and the Highways team, a request was made for West Dorset District Council to assist with the current negative perception of the town by offering some free parking to encourage visitors to stop and shop in the area.
7 The most suitable area to use would be the short stay area of the Yarn Barton car park with the available spaces in The Square car park to be taken into consideration as more information about the capacity and requirements for the use of this area become known. The Yarn Barton car park has a short stay section with a 2 hour maximum stay length and a long stay section where vehicles can park all day. The short stay section has 10 spaces.
8 The 2 hour maximum stay would need to be kept to ensure turnover of spaces. This proposal is suggested for an initial three months, but as there are some unknowns at this present time in terms of the duration of the works and the area which will be required, it is recommended that these decisions to amend this concession are delegated to the Strategic Director and Portfolio Holder for the duration of the works. This could include extending the free parking offer to any part of The Square which becomes available once the extent of ongoing restrictions becomes known.
9 If an area of free parking were to be provided, it will be necessary to have this signposted from outside of Beaminster and in the town to encourage drivers to stop.
Implications
Financial
5 In the 3 months from 1st September 2017 to 30th November 2017 Yarn Barton short stay car park took £689.55, Yarn Barton long stay car park took £4,677.85 over the same time period.
In the same time period in 2017 The Square car park took just over £3,000. Currently this car park is only 50% open so the income is being adversely affected. If this car park is used for a compound for any works being undertaken this would be charged to the contractors. We may be able to make a claim against the insurers for our current loss of income.
Equalities – There are no equalities issues arising directly from this report
Page 180 Environmental – There are no environmental issues arising directly from this report
Economic Development – The recommendations in this report aim to support economic activity in Beaminster and to reduce the adverse impact of works currently being undertaken in the town.
Risk Management (including Health & Safety) – There are no health & safety issues arising directly from this report
Human Resources – There are no Human Resources issues arising directly from this report
Consultation and Engagement
The proposals within this report have been informed by engagement with local businesses
Footnote
Issues relating to financial, environmental, economic and equalities implications have been considered and any information relevant to the decision is included within the report.
Report Author: Nicola Keyworth-Wright Telephone: 01305 838349 Email: [email protected] Date: 30 August 2018
Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11
Strategy Committee 11th September 2018 Private Water Supplies – new Regulations and recharging
For Decision
Briefholder: Cllr. Alan Thacker, Community Safety & Access
Senior Leadership Team Contact: S Hill, Strategic Director
Report Author: K Pitt-Kerby, Environmental Health Manager, Environmental Protection
Statutory Authority Water Industry Act 1991 Private Water Supplies Regulations 2016 Private Water Supplies (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2018
Purpose of Report
1 To inform Members of the implications of the new Regulations in respect of Private Water Supplies
2 To enable Members to decide on cost recovery options for the new sampling & analysis regime required by the Regulations
Officer Recommendations
3. In order to minimise the impact of the new scheme upon the public purse, Members are recommended to adopt a policy of ‘full cost recovery’ for the costs incurred in sampling and analysis of Private Water Supplies, subject to the provisions set out in the report.
4. Members are recommended to approve the proposal to ‘band’ supplies for the purposes of determining the contributions to be recovered for the administration of ‘failure’ results from larger supplies, as described in the Appendix to this report.
5. Members are recommended to approve the proposal that supply owners are recharged for the full costs of Officer time in the undertaking supply Risk Assessments and associated activities.
Page 183 Reason for Decision
6. The new Regulations will increase the costs incurred by the authority in undertaking its duties in respect of Private Water Supplies and Members must decide whether to implement a ‘full cost recovery’ policy, or continue to subsidise these activities from the public purse.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
7. Local Authorities have a range of responsibilities under the above legislation for ensuring that ‘private water supplies’ (‘PWS’) provide wholesome water and that supply infrastructures are maintained in a suitable condition to protect the quality of water supplied to users. These responsibilities include regular sampling and analysis for a wide range of potential biological and chemical contaminants and undertaking Risk Assessments of supply infrastructures. The frequency of sampling and parameters to be analysed for is dependent upon the classification of a supply (see Table 2 below), while Risk Assessments are required to be carried out at least once every five years.
8. The local authority is also required to report annually to the Drinking Water Inspectorate (‘DWI’) on a range of matters, including analytical results, notices served and subsequent enforcement activities, and supply details.
9. New Regulations came into effect from 11 July 2018 which introduced a number of significant changes to the PWS regime. The general theme of the new requirements is to protect public health by improving the quality of water delivered by private supplies and can be summarised as:
10. Mandatory sampling and analysis of a wider range of parameters than was previously required (mandatory for a minimum period of 3 years, after which some relaxation may be permitted where quality standards are consistently met); Removing councils’ discretion as to which suite(s) of parameters any supply might – or might not - be analysed for; Increasing the cap on charges which the council can levy on supply owners in order to recover costs incurred in sampling & analysis, undertaking risk assessments etc.; Enhancing and widening the scope of the information which local authorities must report to the DWI, including details of actions in respect of improvements required as the result of risk assessments, quality standards failures, enforcement action and so on.
Page 184 11. Across the DCP area, the following numbers of private supplies are known to the councils:
Table 1 North Dorset 59 West Dorset 547 Weymouth & 1 Portland
12. Supply sources may include wells, boreholes, springs etc. and are unlikely to be subject to the sophisticated treatment or the level of routine monitoring and maintenance carried out by the statutory water undertakers on ‘public’ supplies, and as such carry a greater risk of not meeting quality standards. Private supplies may serve single domestic properties, or any number of properties, as well as commercial premises such as food or drink producers, private lets, holiday accommodation, campsites etc. The number of premises served, the quantity of water used daily and the use to which the water is then put (e.g. domestic consumption, commercial food production) will determine the ‘classification’ of each supply and in turn dictate the sampling regime applicable.
Table 2: Classification & numbers of private water supplies across DCP Description No. Single Domestic Dwellings (Owner-occupied with no commercial use) 336 ‘Regulation 10 supplies’ (Small supplies of 2 or more properties with 133 <10m3/day water usage for domestic purposes, with no commercial activity) ‘Reg. 9 supplies’ (Large supplies with >10m3/day and/or any commercial 137 use of the water - Hotels, B&Bs, Restaurants etc.) ‘Reg. 8 supplies’ – (Onward distribution of mains water where a property 1 is supplied via a third party who pays the water company.)
13. The costs incurred by the local authority for sampling, laboratory analysis, and undertaking risk assessments and investigations may be recovered from the relevant person/s associated with a supply.
14. By widening the scope of the mandatory sampling regime, the costs incurred by the council for laboratory fees will be increased. The final cost in respect of each individual supply will be determined by the frequency with which sampling is undertaken and any re-sampling necessary as a result of failures then requiring remedial works. Enquiries have indicated that the laboratory costs for sampling & analysis under the new regime will be approximately as set out below (NB: these are less than the DWI had anticipated). It can be seen that the most significant increase will be upon the analysis fees charged for ‘Regulation 9’ supplies (Large supplies with >10m3/day and/or any commercial use of the water - Hotels, B&Bs, Restaurants etc.)
Page 185 Table 3 – Revised analysis fees levied by laboratory Classification £/Frequency Regulation 10 £65.05 (min. 5 yearly) (small, Currently: £41 every 5 years domestic) Regulation 9 £511.60 (min. annually) (large, Currently: £69.65/yr commercial) £4 - £10 each parameter, dependent upon Regulation 8 identified risks Single £4 - £10 each parameter - Sampling only on Dwelling demand Re-sample £4 - £10 each parameter
15. In addition to the laboratory fees above, there are costs involved in collecting samples and transporting them to the laboratory under suitably controlled conditions, in accordance with the Regulations. While some authorities undertake this work through their own staff, the DCP has an arrangement whereby Wessex Water undertake the collection and transport of samples for a fee of £20 each. It is known that other nearby authorities may be charging supply owners as much as £80 to cover officer time and associated costs in collecting and transporting water samples to the laboratory.
16. It should also be borne in mind that in addition to the laboratory charges set out above, the councils will also incur costs in terms of officer time for the handling and administration of sample results, inspecting supply infrastructures while undertaking risk assessments and writing reports, follow-up activity in respect of contaminated supplies or those not reaching required standards when risk assessed. The costs will depend upon the length of time taken in each case, which will, in turn, depend upon the size and complexity of a supply’s infrastructure, and/or the number of properties involved where a sample fails to meet a quality standard or is found to be contaminated.
17. Where a risk assessment identifies a failure to adequately protect a supply against contamination, or confirms the reason for a sample failing a quality test, the local authority has a duty under the Regulations to require the relevant person/s responsible for the supply to put in place remedial measures to secure an improvement. Similarly, where the results of analysis indicate contamination of a supply, the authority is required to investigate the cause and ensure that remedial measures are put in place and to re-sample to ensure that quality standards are then achieved. Local Authorities have a duty to enforce these requirements, including prosecution where necessary, and to provide detailed reports to the DWI.
18. Environmental Health has recently filled one vacancy and is in the process of appointing to another. However, owing to a significant backlog of outstanding risk assessments which have arisen over time, it is intended to appoint a contractor to undertake a number of the risk assessment inspection visits on our behalf and provide detailed reports which will then be followed up by council officers.
Page 186 19. The DWI have suggested that local authorities may need to recruit additional staff to manage the increased workload brought about by these legislative changes; while that is unlikely to be necessary owing to the current arrangements between DCP and Wessex Water (who undertake the physical sampling and analysis on our behalf) it is anticipated that the sampling for additional parameters and enhanced reporting requirements will result in an increased workload for existing council staff.
Implications
20. The enhanced sampling regime will incur additional costs arising from analysis fees charged to the council by the laboratory. The costs per individual supply are as set out above at paragraph 14, Table 3. The total anticipated annual analysis costs to the DCP are shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4 – DCP Laboratory sampling and analysis costs/year Classification No. Cost @ Total Reg. 10 27 £65.05 £1,756 (20% of 133) Reg. 9 137 £511.60 £70, 089 Reg. 8 1 varies - Single dwellings 1 varies - Sampling costs (Reg. 9 & 164 £20 £3,280 Reg.10) Total: £75,125 NB: these costs do not include the administration of results, or undertaking Risk Assessments.
21. There are also costs involved in officer time in dealing with a variety of functions associated with the PWS regime, including dealing with results of analysis, notifying owners and users of ‘failures’ and investigating their causes and undertaking necessary follow-up action to secure improvements in water quality. The time involved will of course vary from supply to supply depending upon a number of variable factors, but the total allocation of officer hours is considerable, and across the DCP is in excess of one FTE officer post.
22. While the time taken to deal with each supply will vary, it is proposed to adopt a simplified system of ‘banding’ supplies by size (numbers of properties served) and applying a notional time allowance to each band, in order to determine the level of costs to be recovered in dealing with the administration of the results of sampling; details are set out in the Appendix to this report. Note that the times allocated are considered likely to be less than the actual time required in each case, and therefore the charges levied would, in effect, only be a ‘contribution’ towards the council’s actual costs.
23. Those served by ‘public’ water supplies are of course subject to a range of charges levied by the water undertaker – formerly ‘water rates’ – which are not applied to those served by private supplies; a quick office poll revealed annual water charges between £200 - £300 annually. It might therefore be Page 187 argued that, should the local authority not recover the majority of the costs it incurs and to which it is entitled, it might be seen as ‘subsidising’ private water supply owners and users from the public purse, a benefit not available to those on public supplies. In lifting the cap on the charges which local authorities might levy upon supply owners, it suggests that the Government does anticipate that local authorities will seek to recover the majority of costs to which they are entitled. It is of course open for supply owners to recover from the occupiers of those properties served by their supplies, a share of any charges levied - thus ensuring that the costs are ultimately distributed among those deriving benefit from a supply, in a similar way to the water charges levied upon those using the public supply.
24. In light of the increased costs which will be incurred by the council in undertaking the range of statutory duties, and having regard to the charges levied by water undertakers to the users of ‘public’ supplies, it is recommended that the council adopts a policy of “full cost recovery” from the ‘relevant persons’ of each supply, having regard to the details set out above and in the Appendix. As a consequence, each supply would be subject to the following charges:
a. Laboratory analysis fees (annually/five-yearly, or on request – see Table 3) plus sampling & transport fees (£20 each) b. Lab fees for re-samples where necessary following failure (£4 - £10 each, plus sampling & transport @ £20) c. Sample results administration costs (variable depending upon ‘size’ of supply and ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ – see Appendix) d. Risk Assessment costs (5 yearly - variable depending upon complexity of supply infrastructure and condition, and any subsequent follow-up action).
25. While describing this as ‘full cost recovery’, it is likely that the administration fees (see Appendix) will only be a contribution towards the actual time spent on these activities. While being mindful that this might represent an increase in the fees levied upon supply owners, it is considered appropriate to recover these costs rather than subsidise them from the public purse. As mentioned previously, it is open to supply owners to re-charge users a portion of these fees, which would replicate the ‘water rates’ paid by those supplied by the statutory undertakers.
26. Once a decision has been reached regarding the recovery of costs, it is intended to publicise via the Communications Team that the council is responding to increased duties imposed by national legislation.
Financial Sampling and analysis costs are set out in Table 4 (para. 20) above. In addition, there are the costs associated with Officers’ time taken in the administration of sample results, risk assessment inspections and follow-up action, and so on. Any costs not recovered from owners/relevant persons will fall upon the public purse.
Environmental Page 188 The council has a range of duties imposed by the legislation to ensure that water supplied for human consumption, or the manufacture of foodstuffs, via ‘Private Water Supplies’, meets a range of quality standards to protect the health of those consuming the supply and to ensure the quality of water used in food or beverage production.
Human Resources Additional workloads will be accommodated within the current Service staffing complement. Limited additional support will be delivered by a contractor for a temporary period.
Consultation and Engagement Relevant Portofolio/Briefholders have been made aware of the implications of the new Regulations.
Background Papers Water Industry Act 1991 Private Water Supplies Regulations 2016 Private Water Supplies (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2018 DWI Information Letter (ref: 01/2018) 04 July 2018
Footnote
Issues relating to financial, environmental, economic and equalities implications have been considered and any information relevant to the decision is included within the report.
Report Author: Kerry Pitt-Kerby, Environmental Health Manager, Environmental Protection Telephone: 01258 484311 Email: [email protected] Date: 23 August 2018
Page 189 Appendix
‘Banding’ supplies for administration purposes; the time allowed would then be multiplied by the charge-out rates for officer time (currently £27 - £33/hr, including overheads). The following arrangements are porposed:
Activity: Supply details Time, cost* Notification of supply 30 minutes ‘pass’ results – all (0.5 x hourly rate = £13.50 – £17.50) supplies Notification of supply ‘failure’ results – Reg. 9 and Reg. 10 supplies: 60 minutes (1.0 x hourly rate = £27 - £33) Up to 5 premises supplied
Notification of supply 75 minutes failure: (1.25 x hourly rate = £33.75 - 6 -15 premises supplied £41.25) 90 minutes 16 - 25 premises (1.5 x hourly rate = £40.50 - £49.50) 105 minutes 26 – 35 premises (1.75 x hourly rate = £47.25 - £57.75) 120 minutes 36 – 45 premises (2 x hourly rate = £54 - £66) 135 minutes 46 – 55 premises (2.25 x hourly rate = £60.75 - £74.25) 150 minutes 56 – 65 premises (2.5 x hourly rate = £67.50 - £82.50) 165 minutes 66 – 75 premises (2.75 x hourly rate = £74.25 - £90.75) 180 minutes 76 – 85 premises (3 x hourly rate = £ 81 - £99) *Note: These costs are only in relation to the administration of sample results, and would be in addition to the laboratory charges levied for sampling and analysis, and the collection of samples.
Page 190 Page 191 This page is intentionally left blank