Public Document Pack
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Members of Management Committee are invited to attend this meeting at Commercial Road, Weymouth, Dorset in the to consider the items listed on the following page.
Matt Prosser Chief Executive
Date: Tuesday, 13 December 2016 Time: 9.30 am Venue: Council Chamber Members of Committee: J Cant (Chair), K Brookes (Vice-Chair), A Blackwood, F Drake, J Farquharson, C Huckle, C James, R Nowak, J Osborne and G Taylor
USEFUL INFORMATION For more information about this agenda please telephone email [email protected]
This agenda and reports are also available on the Council’s website at www.dorsetforyou.com/committees/ Weymouth and Portland Borough Council.
Mod.gov public app now available – Download the free public app now for your iPad, Android and Windows 8.1/10 tablet from your app store. Search for Mod.gov to access agendas/ minutes and select Dorset Councils Partnership.
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 MINUTES
To confirm the minutes of the last meeting.
3 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 the disclosable interest.
Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entred 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 speck 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.
4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
30 minutes will be set aside to allow members of the public to ask questions relating to the work of the Council. 3 minutes will be allowed per speaker. The order of speakers is at the discretion of the Chair and is normally taken in the order of agenda items, questions must relate to a report which is on the agenda for consideration. Notice is not required if you wish to speak at the meeting but if you require an answer to a question it is asdvisable to submit this in advance by contacting a member of the Democratic Services team or alternatively, by emailing [email protected].
5 QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS
To receive questions from Councillors in accordance with procedure rule 12. 6 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN - PAPER TO FOLLOW
To consider the Management Committee Action Plan
7 BUDGET 2017-2018
To receive a verbal update.
8 HARBOUR MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN INCLUDING THE 7 - 14 2017/18 BUDGET
To consider a report setting out the Harbour Revenue Budget for 2017/18 and show the Medium Term Financial Plan.
9 DORSET WASTE PARTNERSHIP DRAFT REVENUE ESTIMATES 15 - 26 2017 - 18
To consider the Dorset waste Partnership draft Estimates for 2017- 2018.
10 MINUTES OF DORSET WASTE PARTNERSHIP JOINT 27 - 42 COMMITTEE
To receive the minutes of 12 September 2016 and 7 November 2016.
11 JOINT RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 43 - 62
To consider the proposed updated Joint Risk Management Strategy for the Dorset Councils Partnership.
12 INVESTMENT DECISIONS 63 - 64
To consider a report of S Caundle, Assistant Chief Executive.
13 WESTERN DORSET ECONOMIC GROWTH 65 - 90
To agree a ‘high level’ economic growth strategy for Western Dorset.
14 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR ARTS ACTIVITIES AND 91 - 98 EVENTS IN WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND
To consider options for future arts activities and events in the borough and to enable members to allocate appropriate resources. 15 WEST DORSET AND WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND LOCAL PLAN 99 - 246 REVIEW: CONSULTATION ON ISSUES AND OPTIONS
To take forward the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review: Issues and Options document for approval by the Council, for the purposes of public consultation.
16 LOCAL COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT SCHEME 247 - 298
To review the conditions of the Local Council Tax Support scheme and propose a revised scheme, effective from 1 April 2017.
17 GRANT AGREEMENT WITH DORSET RACE EQUALITY COUNCIL 299 - 308
To consider a report of the Community Development Team Leader.
18 FREEDOM OF THE BOROUGH - WEYMOUTH SEA CADETS 309 - 310
To consider the granting of the Freedom of the Borough to the Weymouth Sea Cadets.
19 WEYMOUTH TOWN CENTRE MASTERPLAN - SITE UPDATE - 311 - 320 PENINSULA
To consider a report on the investigations undertaken to-date in determining the issues, options and financial viability for progression of the leisure led Peninsula re-development.
20 URGENT BUSINESS
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.
21 4 MONTH FORWARD PLAN 321 - 326
To consider the 4 monthly Forward Plan.
22 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 3 of schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended)
23 WEYMOUTH TOWN CENTRE MASTERPLAN - SITE UPDATE - PENINSULA
Appendix 1 to this report is not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of The Local Government Act 1972, as amended. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. This page is intentionally left blank WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
1. Community Facilities - ANDY BLACKWOOD
Allotments, Cemeteries and Crematorium, Clubs, Community Centres, Parks and Open Spaces, Leisure Centres, Sports Grounds, Swimming Pool, Chalets, Play Areas, Local Plans and Infrastructure, Public Conveniences
Awaitng a business case Greenhill Chalets future Andy Management Oct 2016 from the Community management and renovation Blackwood Committee Association for a David Brown NA management and Page 7 Page maintenance agreement. Other options under consideration. Weymouth Swimming Pool Management March 2017 Agreement in principle Nick Thornley Andy Committee agreed reached which will eliminate Blackwood option D in the NA the present Council subsidy Business Plan expected in 2017/2018.
Review of running track and Management February2017
adjacent land, The Marsh Andy Committee Agenda Item 6 NA Nick Thornley / Tony Blackwood Hurley
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
2. Community Safety - FRANCIS DRAKE
CCTV, Community Safety, Crime and Disorder, Emergency Planning, Environmental Health, Licensing, Police and Crime Commissioner, Police and Crime Panel
Pan-Dorset CCTV proposals Francis Drake Report to Delivery now expected Graham Duggan Management December February 2017. Committee with 2016 business case
Page 8 Page Melcombe Regis Board Gill Taylor Management Action Plan Joint funding from Action plan to be finalised in Matt Prosser Committee expected the participating early January and reported November bodies has been to MC for information in 2016 agreed for a February 2017 community capacity worker. Outsourcing of some dog warden duties, littering and Francis Drake Management Pilot scheme Self Funding from Contract placed with a firm other enforcement Committee (with 6 in October fines with an who provide enforcement Graham Duggan month review in June 2016 – Not expected saving across a range of issues 2017) starting till of £50,000 funded by fines collected. January 2017 Start date January 2017 review in June 2017. Licensing issues and the Francis Drake Management March 2017 NA Officers to report on the enforcement of street trading Committee extension of enforcement activity and preventing drink- under the new contract and fuelled disorder Scrutiny Committee Scrutiny Committee to review the effects of the present licensing arrangements on the town centre
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
3. Corporate Affairs and Continuous Improvement - KEVIN BROOKES
Democracy, Elections, Policy, Member Services, Risk Management Services, Legal Services, Public Relations and Publicity, Audit, Performance and Improvement, Personnel, Shared Services Project, Local Strategic Partnership, Weymouth & Portland Partnership, Relationships External to the Borough, Twinning, Relationship with Portland Town Council
Steps required to establish Kevin Brookes Report explaining the February/ Awaiting the outcome of the Page 9 Page Town Council procedure to March 2016 Unitary Authority decision Stuart Caundle September NA January 2017 – MC to Management review post January Committee. decision on Unitary Aligning Constitutions across Kevin Brookes Decision taken at full DCP NA council - Completed Rob Firth Combined Authority Jeff Cant Council January 2017 Autumn 2016 Case submitted to DCLG Stephen Hill expected decision by April NA 2017 – decision delegated to CEO in consultation with Leader of Council. Local Government Jeff Cant Scrutiny January 2016 DCLG decision Consultation completed. Reorganisation Management July 2017 Decision on the proposed Matt Prosser Committee January NA option for Unitary status to 2016 Councils January 2017 Council January 2016 Scrutiny review of Kevin Brookes Scrutiny then to Referred to Scrutiny performance measurement Management awaiting their timetable for NA and reporting Committee delivery Jason Vaughan
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
Protocol for members to Kevin Brookes Policy then to Referred to Policy awaiting communicate with the press Management their timetable for delivery NA on behalf of the Council Committee Matt Prosser
4. Economic Development - JAMES FARQUHARSON
Economic Regeneration, Employment Sites, Inward Investment, Market, Business Development and Promotion, Local Shopping Centres, Town Centre.
Page 10 Page Support development of James Planning Committee / Sept 2016 Already set-aside Meeting has taken place Brewers Quay complex and Farquharson Management WPBC funding to with owners of property to reach agreement for Committee cover legal fees discuss progress. Property relocation of Weymouth and some moving sold to new developer. Museum within it costs. Other Verbal update at December Stephen Hill funding met Management Committee privately and HLF Western Dorset Growth James Councillor briefing and 21st DCC, WDDC, Officers have presented to Corridor, development plan Farquharson feedback to DCC September WPBC, LEP Members – update to MC for economic growth 2016 December 2016 Martin Hamilton
Weymouth football club James Management NA Negotiations in progress. relocation Farquharson/ Committee Presentation to Stephen Hill Andy Leader/Deputy Leader and Blackwood Ward Member to be organised to update Stage an Economic James Management April 2017 TBA Meeting with BID and Development event at Farquharson/ Committee to agree WPCC agreed a jointly Weymouth & Portland Jeff Cant after opening supported event. Target Martin Hamilton discussions with BID date for event to be fixed.
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
and WPCC Report back to MC February 2017. Review signage within the James This is a BID lead Date not £200k BID have made an Borough Farquharson/Ja project at present known due to unsuccessful application to Nick Thornley; Graham son Osborne application for the Coastal Community Duggan; Trevor Hedger funding Fund for visitor signage for 200k. This now to be on the agenda for the joint liaison group below. Liaison Group with BID and James Management Now NA Initial meeting agreed to
Page 11 Page WPCC to create better links Farquharson/ Committee explore joint funded Town with the business community Jeff Cant Centre Manager. Regular Martin Hamilton liaison meetings to be scheduled. Terms of reference being prepared by officers. Business incubator for new James Management March 2017 NA at present Space has been offered by start ups Farquharson Committee report to Safewise. Purpose and Martin Hamilton Management costs to be defined for MC Committee at March 2017 Meeting.
5. Environment and Sustainability - RAY NOWAK
Building Control, Cleansing, Coast Protection and Policy, Conservation, Development Control, Environmental Education and Initiatives, Forward Planning, Flooding, Local Development Plan, Recycling and Refuse Collection, Sea Defences, Sustainable Development, World Heritage
Early review of Local Plans Ray Nowak/ Submission made to September NA Case drafted – awaiting and submission of case for 5 Andy DCLG 2016 final approval. Find out
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
year land supply to DCLG Blackwood when next count will be Hilary Jordan undertaken. Development Services Ray Nowak Management By the end of NA Development Control Improvement Plan Committee 2017 recovery plan in place. Jean Marshall Member update sessions in progress.
First Phase Flood Defences Jeff Cant Management Autumn 2016 Subject to an Awaiting outcome of Martin Hamilton Committee subject to £11m LEP bid Autumn Statement and
Page 12 Page LEP bid decision on the funds allocated to Listed Building process and Ray Nowak Refer to Scrutiny Awaiting NA The listed building Policy review Committee Scrutiny requirements are perceived Hilary Jordan Committee as seriously inhibiting town programme centre regeneration timetable Gypsy and Traveller DPD Dorset County NA Awaiting final decision from Stephen Hill Ray Nowak Council DCC
Fast track planning Ray Nowak Management NA Part of the Development Jean Marshall Committee Control recovery plan. Member update sessions in progress see above
6. Finance and Assets - JEFF CANT
Budget Control, Corporate Property, Council Offices, Finance Consultation, Fees and Charges, Treasury Management, Procurement, Depot, Long Term Asset Management, Property Services, Collection of Local Taxes, Leasing, Regeneration
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
This is being linked with a Better income generation Jeff Cant Management Proposals to Treasury Funds number of projects including from Treasury Funds Committee December Mgt the regeneration Jason Vaughan/Martin Cttee programme Zone 1. Hamilton
Sale of North Quay Management August 2016 Capital receipt of Contracts exchanged and David Brown Jeff Cant Committee decision to c£4.5m expected awaiting final completion. dispose of the site on completion Change of use notification with a report back at a in progress deadline 12th
Page 13 Page later date for December information
Five Zones identified. Town Centre Regeneration Jeff Cant Management Overall project Consortium with Proposals for Zone 1 Martin Hamilton Committee by 2019 but possible Council Peninsula all year leisure phased participation development approved. First proposal £200,000 agreed for September detailed proposal at 2016 December meeting Zone 2 Commercial Rd to the December Cttee for decision in principle.
Property Asset Management Detailed work Initial analysis produced we Plan Jeff Cant programme to February 2017 now have a full schedule of David Brown Management assets. Further work to Committee to include build in costs and identify an assessment of opportunities has started. additional resources Case for additional
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
required to support resources to assist officers officers required Review of WC Estate Jeff Cant Management February 2017 Report in progress. David Brown Committee NA
7. Housing - GILL TAYLOR
Page 14 Page Affordable Housing, Homelessness, Housing Advice, Housing Benefit, Private Sector Leasing Scheme, Housing Assistance and Improvements through Grants, Loans, Advice and Enforcement
Melcombe Regis Board Gill Taylor Paper to MC re Autumn 2016 Board meetings ongoing. Improving Melcombe Regis funding from housing Action Plan to be reported as a place to live and work reserve in February 2017. Funding for Housing research agreed in Autumn 16. Melcombe Regis Board Gill Taylor Management February 2017 Report approved at MC Survey of houses in multiple Committee November 2016 – to be occupation NA included in Melcombe Regis Geoff Joy Board Action Plan
Dorset Homelessness Gill Taylor Report to February 2017 Dorset Homelessness Strategy Management Strategy Annual Clive Milone Committee NA Consultation and update Feedback to be provided February 2017 Housing Strategy Gill Taylor/Jeff Management March 2017 An overall assessment of Stephen Hill/Matt Prosser Cant Committee TBA the housing needs of the community and the part to
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
be played by each sector in delivering these is required. Liaison with Housing Associations to be organised.
8. Social Inclusion - CHRISTINE JAMES
Page 15 Page Social Inclusion, Customer Contact Centre, Localism Project, Community Regeneration and Development, People with Special Needs and Exclusions, People element of Bereavement Service etc., Safeguarding/vulnerable adults, Health service, Public health, Health & Wellbeing Board, Voluntary Bodies and Groups Making W&P a Dementia Christine James All Members 2017 NA Member seminar to be Friendly Council arranged early in 2017
Supporting local community Christine James Management March 2017 TBA Commission an officer and youth development Committee report to encourage engagement community groups .
9. Tourism and Culture (including Harbour) - JASON OSBORNE
Arts, Attractions, Beach, Beach Cleaning, Culture, Esplanade, Events and Festivals, Museums, Pavilion, Tourism Publicity, Tourism Development (moved from 4), Tourist Information Centre, Seafront Management
Development of arts strategy Jeff Cant Report to Mgt Comm September Combination of Workshop held in October.
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
for the council December 2016 2016 Council and Arts December report and Tony Hurley body funding recommendations to under review Management Committee. Business case for Jason Report to The date is not Coastal A report is in progress – illuminations on the Osborne Management known due to Community Fund date? Esplanade December 2016 the application Nick Thornley for funding Harbour income generation Jason Osborne/ Management April 2017 Budgets Budget agreed without a Keith Howard Ian Bruce Committee realigned deficit 2016/2017 and
Page 16 Page beyond largely by switching costs to Corporate budget. Report on income maximising now required. Weymouth Harbour Walls Jason Osborne Future report to Autumn WPBC Awaiting outcome of LEP David Brown Management 2017 funding bid. Committee on costs of work to wall D and options to external funding Seagull removal Esplanade Jason Osborne Management March 2017 TBA Report to Management David Brown Committee Committee required
10. Transport and Infrastructure - COLIN HUCKLE
Highways and Traffic Management, Parking Policy and Enforcement incl. fees and charges, Public Transport, Taxis and Private Hire incl. fees and charges, Cycle Network, Footpaths and Rights of Way, Liaison with Utility Companies
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
New Car Parking Policy New Car Parking Jack Creeber Colin Huckle Policy considered at August 2016 Awaiting Consultants Traffic Policy C’ttee in Management August. Consulted recommendations. with The Bid, DCC and Chamber of Commerce. 13 Dec 2016 Final Report to be approved by Management C’ttee
Page 17 Page Achieve 6 more Car Park Colin Huckle Report to Marks in addition to 8 already Management March 2017 achieved. Committee Jack Creeber
Install new car parking Approved by £300k was Two Machines are currently machines and destination Colin Huckle Management July 2017 agreed by being trialled Tenders out signage. Trial in Park Street Committee Management for maintenance work. New and Harbour Side car parks Committee to be machines from this trial July. taken from installed January 2017. Jack Creeber Reserves Comprehensive review of all December Part of Deferred by Management car parks to identify free car Colin Huckle 2017 2017/2018 Committee for further park sites and any surplus Budget information. Management assets to enable charges for Committee Report to 2017/2018 to be include proposals for reconsidered. concessions for Zone Jack Creeber/Julie Strange residents and Town Centre traders and Park and Ride. Now expected February 2017.
5th October 2016 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BC – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN
Project and lead officer Councillor Decision points & Anticipated Funding & Progress Update champion who makes delivery date Source decision
New Traffic management A phased set of proposals programme for the Town Colin Huckle Management March 2017 will be produced to seek Centre to include Committee early gains from pedestrianisation proposals pedestrianisation for the and events road closures 2017 season and longer term traffic flow proposals.
Page 18 Page
5th October 2016 Agenda Item 8
Management Committee 13th December 2016 Harbour Medium Term Financial Plan including the 2017/18 budget
For Decision
Briefholders
Cllr Jason Osborne – Tourism, Culture & Harbour Cllr Jeff Cant – Finance & Assets
Senior Leadership Team Contact: M Hamilton – Strategic Director J Vaughan – Strategic Director
Report Author:
Christian Evans – Financial Performance Manager Nick Thornley – Head of Economy, Leisure & Tourism
Statutory Authority
The Harbour Management Board has the responsibility to manage the Harbour finances including budget setting, budget monitoring and the final year end outturn.
Purpose of Report
1 To set out the Harbour Revenue Budget for 2017/18 and show the Medium Term Financial Plan.
Officer Recommendations
That Members
2.1 Approve the proposed 5 year Medium Term Financial Plan and build the 2017/18 harbour budget into the overall Council budget proposals.
2.2 Approve the use of the Harbour Reserve as detailed in Appendix 1
2.3 Approve the transfer of the management of land and buildings at the Peninsula, as detailed in paragraph 5.4, to the Assets & Infrastructure Team on 1st April 2017, and that the associated changes to the Harbour Management Board Terms of Reference are recommended to Full Council with the budget proposals in February 2017.
Page 19 Reason for Recommendation
3.1 The harbour budget is a part of the of the overall corporate budget process.
3.2 Significant steps have been taken to balance the 5 year Medium Term Financial Plan which includes the 2017/18 budget.
3.3 The Harbour Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan was considered by the Harbour Management Board 2nd November 2016, it was approved and recommended to Management Committee.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4.1 The Weymouth Harbour budget forms part of the overall corporate budget process. The final decision on the corporate budget will be made by Full Council in February 2017.
4.2 Since Condor Ferries made the decision to depart in 2015, the harbour budget has been in a deficit position. This is due to the significant reduction in income from berthing fees and building lease income. Measures have been taken to temporarily mitigate this position by using once off funding of £300,000 provided by the Corporate Reserves and the use of the Harbour reserve to balance the budget. However this is not sustainable.
4.3 Staff numbers have been reduced by 3 FTE in the Ferry Port due to the Condor Ferries departure and the Fast Ferries proposal not coming to fruition. As part of the Town Centre Masterplan, there are currently underway to address the future use of the peninsula area. The Harbour Management Board will be involved in this process.
4.4 The presentation of the harbour budget uses standard corporate headings which are:-
Employees –all costs relating to staffing including basic pay, National Insurance, superannuation and training. Premises – Utility costs, rates and maintenance. Transport – Mileage allowances and the cost of the fuel for boats etc. Supplies & Services – Insurance, contracts and other supplies such as advertising, equipment, subscriptions and protective clothing. Income – From such activities as rents & licences, commercial activities, leisure activities and recoverable income.
Report
Revenue Budget 2017/18
5.1 In recognition of the significant financial challenges facing the Council over the coming years and the need, therefore, to review how all services are delivered, the Harbour Board Pagemust also 20 review the harbour operation. 5.2 As a result of the current tough financial climate, the Harbour Board, as with all Council services, is under pressure to generate new income and reduce expenditure. This has been exacerbated by the loss of Condor Ferries, no likelihood of a future ferry operator and stiff competition from the Dean & Reddyhoff marinas in Weymouth and in Portland.
5.3 The Harbour Management Board must produce a sustainable medium term financial plan to limit and reduce the potential burden on council tax payers. The Harbour budget cannot continue to be subsidised by the Corporate or Harbour reserves.
5.4 To enable the Harbour Management Board to produce a sustainable budget position a number of assumptions have been made:-
The ‘No 3 berth repair’ annual interest repayment of £180,000 will be funded from the savings being achieved elsewhere in the council’s corporate budget, rather than the harbour budget. The CCTV utility costs will transfer to the Community Protection service budget. There will be no reduction in the Harbour budget. The responsibility for much of the land and buildings on the peninsula is currently managed by the Harbour Management Board. It is proposed that all land and buildings on the peninsula currently managed by the HMB will be transferred to the Assets & Infrastructure Team. Assets required by the Harbour will be made available at no cost. With no ferry service and fewer buildings within the harbour portfolio, there will be an opportunity to review the staffing requirements in order to achieve further cost reductions. The employee budget has been reduced from £385,000 to £322,000 in 2017/18.
5.5 There have recently been 2 Harbour Board workshops. The scope of the workshops has focussed on future funding of the Harbour. A third meeting is planned shortly.
Harbour Reserve
5.6 The Harbour reserve position at 1 April 2016 was £998,663. After taking into consideration a contribution of £451,664 to balance the 2016/17 budget, the rolling programme of works, and the predicted surplus of £133,175 the estimated reserve balance at the end of 2016/17 will be £680,174.
5.7 Appendix 1 shows the detailed 5 year medium term financial plan for the use of the Harbour Reserve.
Capital programme
5.8 There is currently £1.955 million capital funding allocated to the first 3 years of the 15 year ‘Harbour Walls’ project. This is being funded from capital receipts and reserves. The final cost of this element of the project is likely to be between £2 million to £3 million. Work is continuing on this project which is planned to start in 2017/18. Page 21 5.9 Over the next 5 years a dredging exercise will need to take place in the Harbour. There are some areas of the harbour which are already affecting the movement of boats. The estimated cost of this project will be up to £2 million.
5.10 In the longer term, pontoons at North Quay and Westwey Road are expected to come to the end of their useful life between 2024 & 2027. The cost of replacing these will be in the region of £1.2 million.
5.11 A bid to the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) has recently been submitted for rebuilding of the harbour walls. This reflects the flood risk that WPBC and the Environment Agency believe exists within Weymouth.
Corporate Plan
6.1 Building a stronger local economy
Financial
7.1 As detailed in this report.
Risk Management (including Health & Safety)
8.1 Condor Ferries departure has led to a reduction in income. This will reduce the flexibility of the Harbour budget in the medium term.
8.2 The ‘Harbour Walls’ project budget has already doubled since the original estimate. There is a risk that this could increase further.
8.3 There would be many Health & Safety considerations associated with changing the use of the Port status and during transition periods.
Human Resources
9.1 The future plans including the change of ferry port status and future funding issues may have an affect on current staffing levels.
Consultation and Engagement
10.1 As part of the compilation of the Harbour Business Plan, extensive consultation was carried out. The engagement involved members of the council, and various harbour users including the Consultative group. Members of the Harbour Management Board were consulted on the proposed Medium Term Financial Plan.
Appendices
11.1 Appendix 1 – The Medium Term Financial Plan including the proposed 2017/18 budget.
Background Papers
12.1 The Business Plan for WeymouthPage Harbour. 22 Footnote
Financial, environmental, and economic and equalities implications have been considered and any information relevant to the decision is included within the report.
Report Authors: Christian Evans – Financial Performance Manager Nick Thornley – Head of Economy, Leisure & Tourism
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1 Proposed Current 2016/17 Proposed Harbour Revenue Medium Term Financial Plan 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Budget Budget Summary of Revenue Budget: £ £ £ £ £ £ Expenditure: Employees 384,620 321,973 302,886 307,381 310,622 313,897 Premises 364,532 276,492 278,615 279,446 282,275 283,200 Transport 644 644 644 644 644 644 Supplies and Services 97,697 93,131 94,972 96,562 98,487 100,243 Asset management improvements 266,610 183,200 101,201 266,876 205,209 297,303 No 3 Berth Repair Repayment 180,000 - - - - - Service Recharges 224,000 227,750 229,000 229,000 229,000 229,000
Total Expenditure 1,518,103 1,103,190 1,007,318 1,179,909 1,126,237 1,224,287 Page 25 Page Income: Rents and Licences & other income activities (1,066,439) (1,110,104) (1,132,382) (1,153,915) (1,171,254) (1,195,826)
Total Income (1,066,439) (1,110,104) (1,132,382) (1,153,915) (1,171,254) (1,195,826)
(Surplus) / Deficit of net budget before use of reserves 451,664 (6,914) (125,064) 25,994 (45,017) 28,461
Proposed Current 2016/17 Harbour Reserve Medium Term Financial Summary 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Budget Budget £ £ £ £ £ £ Opening Harbour Reserve balance 998,663 680,174 687,088 812,152 786,158 831,175 To fund in year deficit (451,664) 6,914 125,064 (25,994) 45,017 (28,461) Current year end revenue prediction 133,175 - - - - -
Closing Harbour Reserve balance 680,174 687,088 812,152 786,158 831,175 802,714 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
Management Committee 13 December 2016 Dorset Waste Partnership Draft Revenue Estimates 2017-18
For Decision
Portfolio Holder Councillor R Nowak – Environment & Sustainability
Senior Leadership Team Contact: S Hill, Strategic Director
Report Author: Graham Duggan, Head of Community Protection
Statutory Authority Environmental Protection Act 1990 Dorset Waste Partnership Inter-Authority Agreement
Purpose of Report
1 For your committee to consider and respond to the Dorset Waste Partnership (DWP) draft revenue estimates for 2017-18.
Officer Recommendations
2 To consider the approval in principle of the Dorset Waste Partnership draft revenue estimates for 2017-18 including the council’s contribution.
Reason for Decision
3 The DWP Inter-Authority Agreement (IAA) requires all partner councils to formally consider and approve the draft revenue estimates so that the budget can be set. DWP Joint Committee will consider partner responses at their meeting on 16 January 2017. Your consideration also allows the councils contribution to be built into the council’s 2017-18 budget.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 The draft revenue estimates, revised Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and capital programme were considered by DWP Joint Committee at their meeting on 7 November 2016. The Joint Committee recommended the draft revenue estimates to partner councils for approval.
5 The proposed revenue budget for 2017-18 is £33,100,000 compared to the 2016-17 budget of £34,204,683. This is a reduction of £1,104,683. Page 27 Through the cost sharing agreement this would give a contribution by the council for 2017-18 at 7.31% of the budget which is £2,418,026. This is a reduction of £78,916 for the council on the 2016-17 contribution.
6 The DWP Joint Committee report is attached as Appendix 1 to this report and provides information and assumptions upon which the estimates are based. The detailed appendices to the DWP Joint Committee report are not reproduced here but are available as background papers and also via http://dorset.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=260&MId=950& Ver=4
7 Issues of particular note include;
Inflation on contracts and annual pay award – assumptions may be challenged following the Government decision to leave the European Community and uncertainty in the financial markets (para 3.5 & 3.6).
Recyclate price – the price paid to DWP for good quality recyclate varies upon international economic factors. Recently, DWP have incurred cost rather than income (para 3.8).
Savings in 2016-17 – significant in-year savings have been achieved partly through route optimisation in the east of the county. These have been built into the 2017-18 estimates (para 3.13).
Host authority (DCC) support service costs have been reviewed and reduced (para 4.2).
Savings in 2017-18 – savings from the new Household Recycling Centres contract and reduced opening hours are built in (para 4.3 & 4.4).
8 Your officers consider the draft revenue estimates for 2017-18 to be realistic given the assumptions outlined in the DWP Joint Committee report. The saving of £1.1M on the 2016-17 budget is welcome despite your officers pressing for more. The DWP Joint Committee reports on the revised Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Programme can be found via the link in paragraph 6 above or from the author.
Implications
9 Corporate Plan
Contributes to ‘enhancing the quality of life of people living and working in the borough’.
10 Financial
The contribution to Dorset Waste Partnership for 2017-18 is proposed to be £2,418,026.
Page 28 11 Environmental
The contribution pays for household waste and recyclate collection and disposal and street cleansing.
12 Risk Management (including Health & Safety)
Due to the assumptions upon which the draft revenue estimates are based, there is a risk to the council that the budget will be overspent. Officers will work with DWP to minimise this risk and reports will be made through the business review process and directly to your committee as appropriate. DWP maintains a risk register which is reported to the DWP Commissioning Group where your officers are present.
Consultation and Engagement
In accordance with the DWP Inter Authority Agreement, partner councils are being consulted on the draft revenue estimates for 2017-18.
Appendices
Appendix 1 – DWP Joint Committee report, 7 November 2016 ‘Draft Revenue Estimates 2017-18’.
Background Papers
Appendices 1 & 2 to the DWP Joint Committee report listed above containing the detailed draft revenue estimates and cost share for each DWP partner.
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: Graham Duggan, Head of Community Protection Telephone: 01305 252285 Email: [email protected]
Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank Draft Revenue Estimates for 2017/18
Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee
Date of Meeting 7 November 2016
Officers Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership
Subject of Report Draft Revenue Estimates 2017-18
Executive Summary This report contains draft revenue estimates for 2017-18. An updated Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Programme are presented elsewhere on the agenda.
The draft revenue estimates are presented at this early stage to facilitate comment from partner councils, before formal agreement at the January 2017 Joint Committee meeting.
Sections of the report explain a number of the main aspects, assumptions and drivers of the budget and some of the sensitivities and risks. In broad terms, the budget reflects stability on the collection side now that the ‘Recycle for Dorset’ scheme is fully rolled out. The disposal side of the budget reflects expectations in volume growth and price increases are linked to inflation as part of the contractual arrangements for disposal. Recyclate price remains volatile, being linked to macro-economic factors, which in turn drive the market price.
Details of the savings that are being applied to the budget for 2017/18 are shown, and explained in detail in the main body of the report.
Page 31 Draft Revenue Estimates for 2017/18
Update cost shares are also illustrated based on the draft estimates presented in accordance with the Inter Authority Agreement.
Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment: The services covered by this report have been subject to an Equalities Impact Assessment where appropriate.
Use of Evidence: The figures for the draft revenue estimates for 2017/18 have been drawn up taking account of information about service requirements and costs provided by a range of managers of the Dorset Waste Partnership.
Budget:
The budget contributions expected from each partner to fund the draft revenue budget for 2017/18 are set out in Appendix 2.
Risk Assessment:
Having considered the risks associated with these decisions using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as:
Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk: HIGH
High risk areas are financial, reputational and critical service delivery.
Financial: The operating environment for the Dorset Waste Partnership has potential for overspending arising from uncontrollable external factors (e.g. market prices for recyclates), local factors (e.g. changes in the level of waste generated by Dorset households) and is heavily dependent upon key external contractual relationships for our disposal arrangements.
Reputational: The Dorset Waste Partnership is considered to be a good example of partnership working, with some initial reputational difficulties having now been countered by good financial and operational performance in recent times. However, the underlying risk remains and is reflected in the Dorset Waste Partnership risk register.
Critical Service Delivery: Waste collection is a vital service for Dorset households and the waste must be disposed of safely and efficiently.
Other Implications: Sustainability
A key objective of the Dorset Waste Partnership is to provide a harmonised service that maximises levels of recycling across the
Page 32 Draft Revenue Estimates for 2017/18
county. The current business plan sets out to achieve a level of 60%.
Recommendations The DWP Joint Committee is asked to consider the information in this report and:
i) Recommend the draft revenue estimates for 2017/18 to partner councils, for consideration at the next Joint Committee on 16 January 2016. ii) Note the savings proposals included within the revenue estimates for 2017/18. iii) Note the cost shares for each partner council.
Reason for The Inter Authority Agreement requires the Joint Committee to Recommendations recommend a draft estimate for the following year to partner councils. This is to enable partners to give their views on the draft estimates and to reflect them in their own budgets.
Appendices 1. Draft revenue estimates 2017/18. 2. Cost shares for each partner.
Background Papers None
Report Originator and Contact Name: Andy Smith, Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership, Tel: 01305 224031 Email: [email protected]
Name: Paul Ackrill, Finance and Commercial Manager, Dorset Waste Partnership, Tel: 01305 224121 Email: [email protected]
1. Background
1.1 The Dorset Waste Partnership was formed in April 2011, and has been a partnership of the seven Dorset councils since West Dorset District Council and Weymouth and Portland Borough Council became fully active partners on 1 April 2013. One of the primary objectives of the partnership was to replace the disparate waste collection systems with a single ‘recycle for Dorset’ scheme, which has been in place since October 2015. All properties in Dorset now receive the service, which is approximately 201,000 properties.
1.2 The Inter Authority Agreement (IAA) for the Dorset Waste Partnership requires the Joint Committee to approve a draft budget for the following year. Partner councils must
Page 33 Draft Revenue Estimates for 2017/18
consider the draft budget and respond to the Joint Committee by 16 January with any comments or proposed amendments to it.
1.3 Elsewhere on the agenda is an updated Medium Term Financial Plan which shows how the service will develop over the next few years. The updated Medium Term Financial Plan will also inform the financial planning of the partner councils.
2. Overview
2.1 The draft estimates for 2017/18 are contained in Appendix 1 together with a breakdown of costs for each partner council at Appendix 2.
2.2 The proposed cost of the service for 2017/18 is estimated to be £33.100M and includes net savings of £1.149m which will be needed to achieve the budget.
2.3 There are thought to be good practical prospects of achieving the level of savings stated above, ensuring that the budget has been set on a reasonable basis.
3. Issues and Assumptions affecting the draft estimates for 2017/18
3.1 The starting point for the draft revenues estimates is the updated 2016/17 budget. Figures have been updated to take account of later information and further knowledge of service delivery since previous Medium Term Financial Plans were presented.
3.2 The estimates represent the best level of knowledge that is available at the time of writing. The figures presented in this paper have been considered by the various DWP budget holders and the Senior Management Team, and are considered appropriate for the purpose of informing partner councils of the estimated cost of the service, including reasonable expectations around securing future savings and thus being able to indicate 2017/18 costs to partner councils.
3.3 Some significant assumptions have been made in forming the draft estimates for 2017/18 which brings a degree of risk around the robustness of the estimates, should the practical experience of running the service prove to be different from the assumptions made.
3.4 Significant issues and assumptions are listed below:
3.5 Inflation. A significant proportion of the revenue budget (approaching 50%) is contracted out, with the major contracts being for the Household Recycling Centres (HRCs) and various waste disposal arrangements. These contracts are subject to an annual uplift based on nationally recognised inflation indices. For the purposes of this budget, an inflation rate of 1% has been applied, in line with budget guidance issued by the host authority. This adds almost £194k to the budget.
3.6 Annual pay award. The DWP has approximately 390 FTE employees, of which around 310 are front line service delivery operatives (drivers, loaders, and street cleansing staff). As County Council employees, DWP staff receive an annual pay award as agreed nationally. For 2017/18, this has already been agreed at a 1% increase. This adds around £130k to the budget.
Page 34 Draft Revenue Estimates for 2017/18
3.7 Volumes of household waste arising. The DWP are assuming that volumes of household waste arising will increase by, in the main, 2% (around 4,000 tonnes). This is in line with expectations of household waste growth anticipated in the waste local plan. This adds almost £312k to the budget.
3.8 Recyclate price. The price paid for disposal of recyclate is dependent upon the market price, which is subject to international economic factors. In the past, a considerable income had been received from the sale of high quality recyclate. For 2016/17 a cost of £20 per tonne had been assumed in the budget. The 2017/18 budget assumes a price per tonne paid of £17.32/tonne, giving a total budget of just over £521k, based on an assumption of 30,090 tonnes of material. The figure is £17.32 per tonne is based on an average price over the last 12 months, adjusted for a recent uplift in haulage. Whilst recent monthly prices have been more favourable for the DWP, this budget line will no doubt remain volatile, with current or past prices not necessarily being a guide to future prices. This budget line will continue to be monitored closely going forward.
3.9 Disposal arrangements. Disposal contracts make up a significant proportion of the overall DWP revenue budget, on an assumed total disposal tonnage of 201,432 tonnes at a total budgeted cost of £10.810m.
3.10 Charging for containers. The budget contains a new budget line for income arising from charging for containers, at a value of £83.5k.
3.11 Garden Waste trading account. The draft revenue budget contains assumptions on the Garden Waste trading account based on the decision taken by Joint Committee in September 2016 i.e. delivering a service to over 43,000 customers with a full year charge of £47.50. The trading account is budgeted to make a contribution to overheads of £614.3k. This is an improvement of £165k over the 2016/17 budgeted contribution (£449k).
3.12 Commercial Waste trading account. The Joint Committee will be aware of the steady growth in the DWP Commercial Waste service. The 2016/17 budget was set at a contribution to overheads of just over £100k, with the latest forecasts suggesting that this could be exceeded by £300k. The draft revenue budget presented here recognises this growth, though also recognises the costs that come with growth (i.e. additional collection and disposal costs) and in particular the cost of further replacement of old vehicles. The overall effect for 2017/18 is calculated as a contribution to overheads of £314k, which is an improvement of £213k over the 2016/17 budgeted position.
3.13 Savings identified in the 2016/17 budget round. The major item in the 2016/17 budget round was the route optimisation work in the areas of East Dorset and Christchurch. This work was initially estimated to save £250k per annum (revised to £234k on a later reiteration of the calculation). The Joint Committee will be aware that the route optimisation work was considered to be largely but not fully successful and as a result, some additional temporary resource in 2016/17 has had to be allocated in the area to catch up. The effect on the permanent levels of resource are not totally clear at the
Page 35 Draft Revenue Estimates for 2017/18
time of writing, but a more prudent estimated saving of £117k per annum has been included in the budget for 2017/18, pending further clarification.
3.14 Vehicle workshop staff budget. The budget for 2017/18 assumes an increase in vehicles maintenance capacity.
3.15 Hire of vehicles. With the vehicle purchases that are due to arrive in autumn of 2016, no significant element of the DWP fleet will be on a hired basis in 2017/18. The budget for hiring vehicles is therefore reduced by £100k to just over £200k, which is considered to be the ‘business as usual’ level of hire – hire will always be expected on a small scale to deal with unforeseen breakdowns and seasonal variations (such as beach raking in summer).
3.16 Leased vehicles at Weymouth. The DWP uses leased vehicles at the Crookhill depot under a long term lease arrangement with Weymouth & Portland Borough Council. The number of vehicles leased has reduced over time, in line with the agreed lease schedule. The 2017/18 budget line sees a reduction of over £171k on leased vehicles. 2017/18 is the final year of using these leased vehicles under this arrangement. Replacement vehicles have been catered for as part of the vehicle replacement programme.
3.17 Leased sweepers. 2016/17 saw the DWP take ownership of 17 leased sweepers, at a cost of £564k per annum (including maintenance agreements), following a procurement exercise which indicated that leased sweepers presented better value for money than purchases. Although this is a new budget line, it is not an additional cost pressure – the budget line has been funded from existing budget lines for capital charges and maintenance, which would have borne the costs if these vehicles had been purchased.
3.18 Bin delivery resource has been identified as a pressure point. A sum of £50k has been included in the 2017/18 budget as an estimate to address this.
3.19 The capital charges budget effectively represents the write-off (depreciation) costs of capital expenditure on assets plus associated interest on borrowing of funding. The capital charges budget for 2017/18 is based on the latest expectations of the capital programme, which is the subject of a separate paper on this same agenda.
3.20 Insurance costs. DWPs insurance needs are dealt with via the host authority, whose approach is partly via self-insurance and partly via the insurance market. The insurance costs for 2017/18 will be the subject of a procurement exercise that the host authority is currently undertaking, and the results of that exercise will not be available in time for this budget setting exercise. This budget assumes an inflationary increase on the existing level. It is not anticipated that the procurement exercise will result in either significant increase or significant savings for the DWP, however it is not possible to be certain until the results are known.
4. Savings for 2017/18
4.1 Net savings of £1.149m have been applied to the 2017/18 budget as follows.
Page 36 Draft Revenue Estimates for 2017/18
4.2 Reduction in host authority support service costs, of around £94k, bringing the budget from £1.075m (2016/17) to £993k (2017/18, including annual uplift). DWP have been working with support services to reduce costs wherever possible. These savings have been identified primarily through reduced contact centre demand and savings through financial transactional support, as well as reduced demand for use of the design and print services since the rollout of ‘Recycle for Dorset’ has completed. There is some ongoing work being pursued to agree further savings in ICT, finance and procurement support. Savings from the ongoing work cannot yet be considered as ‘secure’ but the size of potential savings is relatively small compared to the budgeted savings.
4.3 The full year effect of the new HRC contract delivers a saving of almost £523k for the 2017/18 budget.
4.4 The agreed changes to HRC opening hours in winter delivers a saving of almost £160k for the 2017/18 budget.
4.5 The changes to bring bank provision that took place in summer 2016 delivers a saving of almost £123k for the 2017/18 budget.
4.6 The capital charges budget sees an ongoing reduction of £250k due to the agreed changes in accounting for bin life over 15 years rather than 10 years.
5. Cost Sharing
5.1 The Inter Authority Agreement requires notification of residential properties by partner council every year as a driver for the agreed cost sharing formula. Data has been updated to reflect these numbers as at October 2016 in accordance with the agreement; updated figures are shown in Appendix 2. It should be noted that the County Council percentage will be unaffected by any changes in residential property numbers.
5.2 The budget will be presented again for final approval at the Joint Committee meeting of 16 January 2017.
6. Sensitivity and Risks
6.1 The assumptions made in the calculation of the draft estimates for 2017/18 are of course subject to varying degrees of risk. Listed below are an indication of the sensitivity and risk of each of the major factors used.
6.2 Recyclate price paid is assumed to be £17.32 per tonne. A variation of £1 per tonne would result in a change of around £30k in a full year.
6.3 The budget currently assumes household waste growth of 2%. A variation of 1% would result in a change of around £150k in a full year.
6.4 The fuel budget has been based on long term projections of industry experts. Nonetheless, prices for vehicle fuel can be subject to unforeseen fluctuations. The fuel
Page 37 Draft Revenue Estimates for 2017/18
budget, excluding the trade waste and garden waste services, is £1.3m for the year. A 1% variation in prices paid would affect the DWP by £13k.
7. Budget Equalisation Reserve
7.1 The Joint Committee are reminded that, at the end of financial year 2015/16, it was agreed to set up a budget equalisation reserve. The following funds are currently held in the reserve: Amount held in Budget Local Authority Equalisation Reserve (£) Dorset County Council 336,587
Christchurch BC 20,316
East Dorset DC 30,863
North Dorset DC 27,382
Purbeck DC 20,835
West Dorset DC 37,982
Weymouth & 45,620 Portland BC Total 519,584
8. Next Steps
8.1 The budget timetable as set out in the Inter Authority Agreement requires the Joint Committee to approve a budget at this Joint Committee for consideration and comment by partner councils. Final approval will be sought by the Joint Committee in January 2017, to allow partner councils to set their own budgets and council tax levels during February 2017.
8.2 Further work will continue in ensuring that the savings plan, as set out, can be achieved in practice and in a timely fashion.
8.3 The Dorset Finance Officers Group will be invited to review the draft estimates, together with the redrawn Medium Term Financial Plan, so that their views can be considered and to ensure that they the draft estimates and Medium Term Financial Plan meets the needs of all partners.
Andy Smith Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership
Paul Ackrill Finance and Commercial Manager, Dorset Waste Partnership
Page 38 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 10 Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee
Minutes of the meeting held at on Monday, 12 September 2016.
Present: Anthony Alford (West Dorset District Council) (Chairman) Michael Roake (North Dorset District Council) (Vice-Chairman)
Members Attending Peter Finney (Dorset County Council), Robert Gould (Dorset County Council), Colin Bungey (Christchurch Borough Council), Margaret Phipps (Christchurch Borough Council), Ray Bryan (East Dorset District Council), Barbara Manuel (East Dorset District Council), Peter Webb (Purbeck District Council), Alan Thacker (West Dorset District Council), David Walsh (North Dorset District Council) and Kevin Brookes (Weymouth & Portland Borough Council).
Other Members in attendance Timothy Yarker (West Dorset District Council) (observer)
Dorset Waste Partnership Officers Attending: Paul Ackrill (Commercial and Finance Manager), Gemma Clinton (Interim Head of Service - Strategy), Grace Evans (Clerk), Michael Moon (Head of Service (Operations)), James Potten (Communications and Marketing Officer), Karyn Punchard (Director), Andy Smith (Treasurer), Denise Hunt (Senior Democratic Services Officer), Lindsay Cass (Christchurch and East Dorset Borough Councils), Stephen Hill (Dorset Councils Partnership) and Rebecca Kirk (Purbeck District Council).
Other Officers in attendance Lindsay Cass (Christchurch and East Dorset Borough Councils) and Stephen Hill (Dorset Councils Partnership).
(Notes:(1) Publication In accordance with paragraph 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the Joint Committee’s Constitution the decisions set out in these minutes will come into force and may then be implemented on the expiry of five working days after the publication date. Publication Date:Monday, 19 September 2016
(2) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Joint Committee to be held on Monday, 7 November 2016.)
Apologies for Absence 34 Apologies for absence were received from David Budd and Ray Nowak.
Deferral of Agenda Item 35 The Chairman advised that Item 11 – Vehicle Capital Replacement Programme had been withdrawn from the agenda as further work was required. This item would be considered at a future meeting.
Code of Conduct 36 There were no declarations by members of any disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.
Councillor Ray Bryan was advised that he should not declare an interest in Item 13 – Garden Waste Service and Setting the 2017/18 Price as a subscriber to the service.
Minutes 37 The minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2016 were confirmed and signed.
Page 39 Public Participation 38 A public question was received at the meeting in accordance with Host Authority Standing Order 21(1) which the Chairman read aloud on behalf of Ms S Whitehead who was unable to attend the meeting. He also read aloud the e-mail response by the Director of the DWP. Both the question and response are attached as an annexure to these minutes.
The Chairman advised that further to the e-mail correspondence, Ms Whitehead had requested the e-mail address for the Operations and Transport Manager and that the matter was in hand.
There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).
Petitions There were no petitions received in accordance with the County Council’s petition scheme at this meeting.
Dorset Waste Partnership Forward Plan 2016 39 The Joint Committee considered the forward plan and members were informed of the following changes:-
Items on the Narrow Access Review and Vehicle Replacement Capital Programme to be considered on 07/11/16 A new item on the Revised Dorset Waste Strategy – date to be advised.
Noted
Financial Report September 2016 40 The Joint Committee considered a joint report by the Treasurer and Finance and Commercial Manager to the Dorset Waste Partnership.
The Treasurer outlined the report and explained that the August figures had revealed a potential £971k underspend against the revenue budget of £34.205M which was a better position than the underspend of £733k highlighted in the report. The main reason for the change was an improved forecast in relation to Commercial Waste income.
The Director drew attention to two issues in particular:-
The adverse impact of disposal costs of £150k as a result of the need to find alternative disposal arrangements for 15,000 tonnes of waste that was originally to be diverted from Trigon to New Earth Solutions (NES) Canford from August 2016 under a contract variation.
Savings identified in the report were mostly secure apart from £166,667k saving arising from route optimisation in East Dorset and Christchurch.
A member commented that it had been stated previously that service levels should not suffer in the rush to achieve savings and that route optimisation had a significant impact on residents that required a long term solution.
It was noted that residents had been informed that they would receive a letter if a round had been changed, however, services had also been disrupted for some communities that had not been subject to a change in collection day.
The Director responded that the majority of routes had worked well across Christchurch and East Dorset, however, there were continuing problems in areas Page 40 including Wimborne, Ferndown, Verwood and Colehill. She explained that it was currently unclear why crews were unable to complete rounds on time. Therefore temporary resources were being put in place to ensure that rounds were completed on time and supervisors would also work with the crews in order to understand what was happening on the ground.
It was unlikely that the savings identified would be achieved in full for 2016/17. Any change in rounds arising from the investigatory work would not take place until the end of the year and be clearly communicated to residents. The Joint Committee would be updated on developments and savings subsequently identified in the next budget round.
A member highlighted that the reduction in capital expenditure expressed in the report was a postponement of payment rather than a saving and that the way in which savings on recyclate price was not presented clearly in the report.
The Chairman asked that officers reflect on the latter point in time for next report.
Noted
Inter Authority Agreement (Scheme of Delegation and Scrutiny Arrangements) 41 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Legal Advisor that included a proposed Scheme of Delegation. Annual approval of the Scheme had been deferred from the June meeting as the Inter Authority Agreement (IAA) was in the process of being discussed and reviewed. The proposed Scheme was in line with the DCC Scheme of Delegation as the host authority and, if approved, would come into effect once the IAA had been signed by all of the Partner Councils.
The proposed Scheme was outlined in detail in the report and assumed that staff had authority to do what was necessary to perform their role unless the Scheme specified that a decision must be taken by someone else, such as the Joint Committee. Furthermore, there would be certain matters that the Director must decide whether to sub delegate in writing or to bring to the Joint Committee for consideration.
A member expressed the view that the revised scheme was confusing and overly complicated and that a bespoke Scheme for the DWP would be appropriate, however, a majority of members considered that adoption of the host authority Scheme offered consistency and that a bespoke scheme might not look so different from what was proposed.
With regard to the scrutiny arrangements, the Legal Advisor explained that the revised IAA contained provisions for an informal Joint Scrutiny Group in addition to the formal scrutiny arrangements of the Partner Authorities.
The suggested terms of reference for the Group had been circulated to the nominated scrutiny councillors for their views. The Legal Advisor reported that comments had been received from 3 councillors who wanted all of the suggested areas of scrutiny to be included and to therefore replace the word “OR” with “AND” in the terms of reference. Another Councillor had indicated that there should be pre and post decision scrutiny.
The Vice-Chairman expressed the view that informal pre-decision scrutiny could become unmanageable and divert officer time away from the business. He suggested that any decision to undertake pre-decision scrutiny should be taken by the Chairman in conjunction with the Director. He also considered that the scrutiny group should make recommendations to the Joint Committee and not have any decision making powers, however, it was found that this reference had been due to a typographical error in the report. Page 41
The Chairman considered that the opportunity for pre-decision scrutiny would be useful, particularly with regard to pre-budget scrutiny. He suggested that “pre” or “post” decision scrutiny did not need to be prescribed and that references to the word “pre” should be removed from the IAA which was supported by the Joint Committee.
A member highlighted the risk that the informal Joint Scrutiny Group could duplicate the work of scrutiny undertaken by the Partner Authorities.
The Legal Advisor stated that the legislation did not permit a formal joint authority scrutiny group in respect of waste services. Whilst understanding the risks associated with creating a double tier of scrutiny, this was the best that could be achieved at the present time.
Further suggestions were made to invite substitute members to attend all meetings (but not speak unless substituting for the nominated member) and that a report be prepared in 12 months’ time as part of the annual report on the Scheme of Delegation and Schedule of Meetings in June 2017.
Resolved That in anticipation of the execution of the new Inter Authority Agreement that: 1 The Scheme of Delegation be adopted; 2 A Joint Scrutiny Group be established with a recommendation for the Joint Scrutiny Group to adopt the proposed schedule of meetings and terms of reference as amended by the Joint Committee; and, 3 That Partner Authorities appoint elected members to the Group, details to be provided to the Clerk to the Joint Committee.
Reason for Decision To support the delivery of effective public services through the Dorset Waste Partnership.
Inter-Authority Agreement (cost sharing - options) 42 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership which set out options for sharing the costs between partners for 2017/18 and beyond. The report had regard to local government reorganisation and that a revised cost sharing arrangement might only be required for the next two years.
The Treasurer outlined the options contained in the report and the rationale for recommending option 2 which took account of changing household numbers and would create less financial turbulence associated with options 3, 4 and 5.
In response to a question the Treasurer confirmed that option 2 allowed for a change in household numbers whereas option 1 did not.
The Joint Committee considered option 2 a pragmatic approach and acknowledged the huge amount of work that would be necessary to investigate a number of factors (eg urban vs rural factors) which could be overtaken by the timeline for local government reorganisation.
The Chairman advised that a unanimous decision was required by all the partner authorities on the cost sharing mechanism.
Resolved That Option 2 be adopted, and adjusted in future for changing household numbers, as indicated on the annual ‘CTB1’ returns.
Page 42 Reason for Decision To ensure that future cost sharing of Dorset Waste Partnership costs was as fair and equitable as possible.
Charging for "Recycle for Dorset" Containers 43 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Interim Head of Service (Strategy) of the Dorset Waste Partnership which set out a charging approach for certain “Recycle for Dorset” containers.
The Interim Head of Service outlined the report in detail including the areas where it was felt that a charge could be made at the present time. This did not include charging for lost or damaged containers due to the risk posed to recycling rates.
A member highlighted that loss or damage of containers sometimes arose as a result of collection and that there appeared to be variations in crew performance in this respect.
The Interim Head of Service advised that further investigation would be necessary to understand the reasons why containers were lost or damaged and this data would be collected via the website to assist future decision making. Implementing vehicle telematics could also be a way of recording damage to containers so that officers could be confident when loss or damage had arisen as a result of collection.
Members asked some questions in relation to residents in their areas and were advised that assessments were made on a case by case basis due to the wide variety of circumstances involved. However, there were instances when a charge would not be made if there was a clear operational benefit to the DWP.
The question was raised whether charging for a larger size refuse bin was discrimination against larger families.
The Director responded that the negative impact on larger families had been recognised and that the equalities impact assessment identified actions to mitigate the impact of the charges by offering advice, help and an extra effort with communications in order to allow people to reduce the volume of waste. An example of this was the Real Nappy Scheme that was being promoted in order to reduce residual waste.
The Joint Committee supported the idea of new developers purchasing the containers and wished to see links with planning departments strengthened, particularly with regard to ensuring that roads were to an adoptable standard.
Members were advised that Dorset County Council could not require developers to bring roads up to an adoptable standard in order for DWP vehicles to access properties and that this was achieved through negotiation and not enforcement.
Members were asked to consider the question of public consultation as this would be the first time that charging for containers was implemented on a wider scale.
The Legal Advisor had found the legal requirement to be less clear cut than previous service changes and other councils had undertaken public consultation as charging for containers was included as part of a wider service change. In the absence of public consultation there was a risk of challenge which would delay any decision being implemented until such time as public consultation had taken place.
She advised that the Joint Committee could agree to support the recommended approach and agree to online consultation over a 30 day period with a report on the findings of the public consultation to Joint Committee or delegate this to the Page 43 Chairman. It was confirmed that there would be sufficient time for this to take place before charging was implemented from 1 April 2017.
Members were mindful that, in all likelihood, the public would not wish to see charging introduced, and would serve to fuel public perception that councils did not listen to what the public had to say. It was therefore important to communicate the proposals with other parties, such as developers, in order to achieve a balanced view.
The Legal Advisor highlighted the difference between communications and compliance with legislation based public consultation required prior to significant service change. Despite the predictability of the public response, the standard to achieve would be to consult on a range of options, the outcome of which must be taken into account in the final decision.
The Vice-Chairman expressed an alternative view that since the charges would only affect a small percentage of residents, that resources should not be allocated to public consultation and that the decision should be taken by elected representatives without delay. He also noted that the bins did not have to be purchased from the DWP as long as the containers met the required specifications.
The Director confirmed that an online public consultation over a 30 day period would not take up significant staff resource and that consideration of the outcome could be delegated to the Chairman in conjunction with the Director.
Resolved 1 That the proposals identified in paragraph 3.5 of this report to commence charging for certain ‘Recycle for Dorset’ containers be supported; 2 That the ‘Recycle for Dorset’ policy wording relating to additional refuse sacks as identified in paragraph 3.5 (iii) of the report be amended; 3 That authority is delegated to the Director of DWP, in consultation with the Chairman of Joint Committee, to review the level of charges and make any further policy changes regarding charging for containers. 4 That formal public consultation is undertaken on the proposals identified in paragraph 3.5 of the report and that a report is prepared for the Joint Committee to consider the results of the consultation.
Reason for Decisions Implementing the proposed policy and charges would allow the DWP to recover the costs of purchasing and delivering household waste containers as permitted by the EPA 1990 (s 46), resulting in an avoided financial burden of approximately £124,000 per annum (minus an estimated £40,500 for admin and I.T requirements). Without the introduction of a charging policy for these waste containers, the DWP would continue to incur this cost. As detailed in this report, this cost could be passed to housing developers and customers.
Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for Fly Tipping and Use of an External Company to Issue FPNs 44 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Interim Head of Service (Strategy) of the Dorset Waste Partnership that set out the introduction of a charging fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for fly tipping offences following a change of legislation in May 2016.
Members were disappointed that recent court action had resulted in a fine that was less than the cost of the proposed FPN, however, it was acknowledged that proceeding with court action could save money over the longer term by making people think twice about fly tipping.
Resolved 1 That a charge level of £400 is set for fixed penalty notices made under The Page 44 Unauthorised Deposit of Waste (Fixed Penalties) Regulations 2016 with a 50% reduction if paid within 7 days; 2 That the Director of the DWP be authorised to procure and appoint the external company; and, 3 That a 12 month pilot is carried out with an external company to issue FPN’s for littering, fly-tipping and failure to produce duty of care documents on behalf of the DWP.
Reason for Decisions It was a legal requirement to specify a charge under the regulations. The recommended charge was the maximum amount set out in the legislation.
Vehicle Replacement Capital Programme 45 This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
Corporate Risk Register 46 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Interim Head of Service (Strategy) who explained that the risk register had been brought back due to the increase in disposal costs outlined in risk 1 that related to the uncertainty surrounding NES and its sub holding NES (Canford) and the need to divert the additional 15,000 tonnes between August 16 and January 17 at greater cost. If the situation remained unresolved then there were potential larger risks going forward as other disposal options may not be as cheap.
A member asked whether there was the potential for DWP to invest in NES (Canford) and the Director responded that this could be considered along with other options, possibly in partnership with Bournemouth and Poole. Although officers were keeping in close contact with NES, there would come a point towards the end of the year where a decision would need to be made and it could then be necessary to re-procure a disposal contract next year.
A member noted that loss of senior managers was not included in risk 6. The Director informed the Joint Committee that this risk was attached to all staff, however, the risk in relation to senior managers was currently quite low due to improved resilience with the senior management team and that the largest risks were in relation to operational posts.
Noted
Garden Waste Service and Setting the 2017/18 Price 47 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership that provided an update on the garden waste service and sought to set 2017/18 price.
The report was introduced by the Finance and Commercial Manager who outlined the main points of the report.
Members discussed the report and made the following comments:-
That collections could be made at less frequent intervals during the winter rather than stopping altogether. Linking the service with local authority allotments sites as part of allotment rental could be investigated. That the service should not be reduced at the same time as increasing its cost The introduction of charges at HRCs, resident dissatisfaction with missed collections together with an increase in garden waste charges could lead to an increase in fly tipping.
Page 45 Members were informed that work undertaken previously had shown a saving of £40k for not providing a winter service for a 3 month period and that due to the need to find additional savings in future, officers were asking members whether there was an appetite for more detailed work for options that could come into effect in 2018/19.
Councillor David Walsh proposed a £4 price increase which was seconded by Councillor Peter Finney. Upon being put to a vote, there were an equal number of members in favour of a £2.50 (to £47.50) increase and a £4 (to £49) increase. The Chairman used his second vote to support an increase of £2.50 to £47.50.
Resolved 1 That the annual fee of £47.50 for 2017/18 for the DWP Garden Waste service be approved; 2 That the implications of a reduced Garden Waste service in the winter months, to take effect no earlier than 2018/19 be explored by officers; and, 3 That the Joint Committee agree that the annual charge for garden waste sack customers is set at £5 less than the price agreed for a wheeled bin.
Reason for Decisions To offer a garden waste service at a price that would remain popular with customers whilst maintaining an acceptable level of contribution to overheads.
Questions from Councillors 48 No questions were asked by members under Standing Order 20.
Meeting Duration: 10.00 am - 12.15 pm
Page 46 Minute Item 38
Dear Committee
LITTER BINS ON PORTLAND
I wrote to you over a year ago on 15 June 2015 and received your reply dated 27th October 2016 from Karyn Punchard, Interim Director, DWP.
As indicated in the letter I believe our local Councillors have now indicated the places and number of bins required. I also believe the proposal was approved.
Could you please give me an indication as to when the extra waste bins may be installed on Portland please or if indeed this is ever going to happen. This is especially required at car parks, including Portland Bill, which belongs to the Council and has no access difficulties. I have seen dog waste bags/litter placed on a large Portland stone outside the ladies public toilets there. A lovely impression for the tourists and must be an environmental health issue.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully Sandy Whitehead
Response from Dorset Waste Partnership:-
Dear Mrs Whitehead
Our Operations Manager covering the Portland area has been in discussion with senior officers from Weymouth and Portland Borough Council about the Councillor consultation survey and rationalisation of bins in the Borough. They have identified this area as an area that needs some attention but it will require the removal of a smaller bin as part of the work. Provision within car parks will be discussed further with the Borough Council, if they wish to provide additional facilities.
I apologise that progress on this project has been delayed due to other work priorities within the DWP and Borough Council. If you require any further information or an update on progress please contact Andy Cadman, Operations and Transport Manager Crookhill Depot Tel 01305 225451.
Regards
Karyn Punchard Director Dorset Waste Partnership
Page 947 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 48 Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee
Minutes of the meeting held at on Monday, 7 November 2016.
Present: Anthony Alford (West Dorset District Council) (Chairman) Michael Roake (North Dorset District Council) (Vice-Chairman)
Members Attending Margaret Phipps (Christchurch Borough Council), Barbara Manuel (East Dorset District Council), David Budd (Purbeck District Council), Peter Webb (Purbeck District Council), David Walsh (North Dorset District Council), Ray Nowak (Weymouth & Portland Borough Council), Kevin Brookes (Weymouth & Portland Borough Council), Robin Cook (Dorset County Council), Mike Dyer (East Dorset District Council) and Mary Penfold (West Dorset District Council).
Other Members in attendance Daryl Turner (observer).
Dorset Waste Partnership Officers Attending: Paul Ackrill (Commercial and Finance Manager), Gemma Clinton ( Head of Service - Strategy), Grace Evans (Clerk), Michael Moon (Head of Service - Operations), James Potten (Communications and Marketing Officer), Karyn Punchard (Director), Andy Smith (Treasurer), Denise Hunt (Senior Democratic Services Officer)
Other Officers in attendance Steve Mackenzie (Purbeck District Council), Lindsay Cass (Christchurch and East Dorset Borough Councils) and Graham Duggan (Dorset Councils Partnership).
(Notes:(1) Publication In accordance with paragraph 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the Joint Committee’s Constitution the decisions set out in these minutes will come into force and may then be implemented on the expiry of five working days after the publication date. Publication Date:.Monday, 14 November 2016
(2) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Joint Committee to be held on Monday, 16 January 2017.)
Apologies for Absence 49 Apologies for absence were received from Ray Bryan, Colin Bungey, Peter Finney, Robert Gould and Alan Thacker.
Code of Conduct 50 There were no declarations by members of any disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.
Minutes 51 The minutes of the meeting held on12 September 2016 were confirmed and signed.
Public Participation 52 Public Speaking There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).
There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).
Page 49 Petitions There were no petitions received in accordance with the County Council’s petition scheme at this meeting.
Dorset Waste Partnership Forward Plan 2016 53 The Joint Committee considered its forward plan and were advised of the following in relation to the unscheduled items:-
Infrastructure Review – to be considered in March or June 2017 Update on Commercial Waste Pricing Policy & Revised Dorset Waste Strategy - to be considered on 23 March 2017 (both are open reports)
Noted
Vehicle Replacement Capital Programme 54 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Head of Service (Operations) which was an update on the report in October 2015 that identified some revised vehicle requirements relating to the replacement of leased vehicles and replacement street cleansing vehicles.
A member expressed concern regarding the increase in cost from £422k to £645K and that forward planning with regard to procurement was not as strong as it should be.
The Head of Service (Operations) advised that the increase in capital spend had been due to the replacement of street cleansing vehicles that had not been anticipated in the original plan. In addition, a van mounted cleansing system was proposed for the removal of graffiti and chewing gum.
Resolved That the revised procurement programme as outlined in this report be agreed.
Reason for Decision To ensure continued review of the fleet and allow the DWP to develop Commercial Services and respond to the requests from partner Authorities.
Financial Report November 2016 55 The Joint Committee considered a joint report by the Treasurer and the Finance and Commercial Manager to the Dorset Waste Partnership.
The Treasurer reported that the October forecast data had become available since the report was published and had produced a similar figure in terms of the potential underspend of £1.2m in 2016/17.
Members queried the savings arising from route optimisation in East Dorset and Christchurch given the costs of the additional resources that had been necessary to ensure that rounds were completed on time.
It was confirmed that the cost of the temporary resources relating to extra vehicles and employment of agency staff had been in the region of £80-85k. These costs had been absorbed in the operational budget and were therefore not included as an overspend in the report. In 2017/18 there would be half of the expected saving based on what was currently known.
A member congratulated the DWP finance team on the work achieved so far which was both welcoming and encouraging. It was noted that the Joint Committee was able to have a better understanding of the risks inherent in the budget, particularly the price of recyclate which remained a volatile factor. Page 50
Members asked at what point the underspend of £1.2m would be returned to the partner authorities.
The Treasurer advised that the Joint Committee would determine whether the whole amount was returned to partner authorities or whether any adjustment was made to the budget equalisation reserve at its meeting in June 2017 once the financial closing position for 2016/17 was known.
The report included the capital spend and commitment for the year to date and the Director gave a short presentation to provide an update on the Blandford scheme project that had been subject to a delay in capital expenditure.
Members were shown a plan of the existing facility and proposed new site and two options relating to highways access to the site.
The Director advised Members on the following points:-
Land agent Savills had agreed to the sale of the land. Dorset Property had been appointed to manage the project. DWP Officers would undertake a site visit to the Broomhills depot that afternoon with the AONB team and waste local planners in order that they could be appraised of the issues. That the new Blandford facility should be open and available in 2020.
The Director advised that discussions with the local planners had been very positive. The site had been identified in the waste local plan and was likely to be confirmed in the Local Plan. Officers wanted to minimise the possibility of any objection to the scheme by the AONB team by holding early discussions, and incorporating any design requirements in at an early stage.
Noted
Draft Revenue Estimates 2017/18 56 The Joint Committee considered a joint report by the Treasurer and the Finance and Commercial Manager to the Dorset Waste Partnership.
Following introduction of the report by the Treasurer, a member noted that the budget assumed income arising from charging for containers which was premature as the public consultation had not yet concluded. The Treasurer confirmed that this element of the budget would be subject to further consideration at the meeting in January 2017.
Members asked whether any assumptions had been made for the way in which the DWP would be affected by local government reorganisation.
The Director confirmed that all planning under the Medium Term Financial Plan assumed the current geography of the DWP. The impact of local government reorganisation, including any disaggregation, would be assessed once a decision had been made with regard to the future structure and geography of local government. The Chairman offered a political view that any process of disaggregation would be disruptive and should be avoided if at all possible.
The Director drew attention to the budget relating to the disposal arrangements and updated members on the present situation with New Earth Solutions (NES). Ownership of NES had been bought by Panda Green which had a significant amount of waste management experience and presence in Ireland. She confirmed that Panda had been very open about its accounts and the improvements that the DWP Page 51 would require to be in place from January 2017, in order to divert 15k tonnes of waste to the facility.
She was therefore cautiously optimistic that the arrangements being put in place would have a positive impact on the budget that could lead to a further £100k saving. This would also be subject to negotiations that were ongoing with regard to the cost of diverting the additional 15k tonnage from January 2017.
She confirmed that representatives from Panda would be available to speak to members attending the site visit to NES (Canford) later in November.
The Chairman confirmed that any necessary budget adjustments in relation to disposal costs would be reflected in the report in January 2017.
RECOMMENDED That the draft revenue estimates for 2017/18 be recommended to partner councils, for consideration at the next Joint Committee on 16 January 2016.
Resolved 1 That the savings proposals included within the revenue estimates for 2017/18 be noted; 2 That the cost shares for each partner council be noted.
Reason for Recommendation The Inter-Authority Agreement required the Joint Committee to recommend a draft estimate for the following year to partner councils. This is to enable partners to give their views on the draft estimates and to reflect them in their own budgets.
Capital Programme 2016/17 - 2021/22 57 The Joint Committee considered a joint report by the Treasurer and the Finance and Commercial Manager to the Dorset Waste Partnership.
The Chairman summarised the recommendation and explained that Dorset County Council was required to approve capital expenditure as the host authority.
Further to a question it was confirmed that the first meeting of the Joint Scrutiny Group would take place on Friday 18 November. Both members and reserves had been appointed to this group. An agenda was currently being compiled that would include items on the terms of reference, the 2017/18 budget and a suggested forward plan.
Resolved That the Treasurer be instructed to take the latest capital estimates through the County Council’s capital programme approval arrangements.
Reason for Decision The Capital Programme did not require the formal approval of partner councils, but they were invited to comment on the programme.
The County Council, as host authority, must incur capital expenditure on the Partnership’s behalf by including the expenditure in the County Council’s capital programme.
Medium Term Financial Plan 2016/17 - 2021/22 58 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership.
The Treasurer explained that the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) was a Page 52 statement about what the service would cost if it continued in its present form. It also included savings that had already been implemented. It made no assumptions about the local government reorganisation or about future savings proposals.
The Chairman commented that whilst understanding of the standstill position in terms of the assumptions, it might be interesting to know to what extent these adjustments could be tested in order to understand the impact on the model in the medium term when circumstances changed, for example, if there were a further 500 households. The Treasurer confirmed that an exercise to test the MTFP in this way could be undertaken.
The Director advised that the member Budget Challenge workshop held on 12 September considered major budget savings and service changes. The projected impact on the MTFP could be included as part of the agreed work streams in order that members could assess whether to introduce any of those service changes going forward.
Resolved That the Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 to 2021/22 be adopted.
Reason for Recommendation The Joint Committee along with the Management Board monitored the Partnership’s performance against budget and scrutinised actions taken to manage within budget on behalf of partner Councils.
Narrow Access Routes - Savings Options 59 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Head of Service (Operations) which reviewed the application of the policy for collection of containers from the highway and also provided an update on the issue of glass collection on narrow access routes. The Head of Service (Operations) confirmed that the DWP did not have the infrastructure in place to collect glass as a separate waste stream.
Some revised wording to paragraph 3.5 of the policy was circulated to members of the Joint Committee at the meeting as follows:-
“Containers should be placed on the kerbside at the boundary/edge of curtilage of the property adjacent to the publicly maintained road, unless otherwise agreed by the DWP. Wheeled bins and containers must be clearly visible with no restrictions to access.
Where a household is on a private street and council collection vehicles have historically accessed this road, the DWP will endeavour to continue to do so. Where the collection is from a private road then permission will be required from the owner. Both for private streets and for private roads DWP will not accept liability for damage caused to the private road/street surface (including verges) where DWP are acting reasonably.
Where it is not possible to access the private road or street or permission is not received, the normal collection point will be at a suitable position on the nearest publicly maintained road or at another point agreed between the household and the DWP. Where the DWP cannot collect from a private road or a private street householders will be contacted concerning the revised collection point.”
Councillor Dyer expressed concern about the policy. He explained that there were a number of roads in his ward that were not owned by anybody leading to a legal situation that was far from clear. Although these were not necessarily narrow access roads, they were unadopted and standard vehicles performed the waste collection. He therefore needed to be reassured that these collections would continue as this Page 53 had not been specified in the recommendations. He also asked what would happen if 1 or 2 residents refused to sign an indemnity and whether the revised wording could also include reference to narrow access roads.
The Legal Advisor agreed to revisit the wording with regard to narrow access in order to make this clearer in the policy. She explained that private roads and streets were not maintained by Dorset County Council at public expense. The public had access to private streets, but DWP required permission to collect waste from private roads.
She explained that, aside from the issue of narrow access, the revised policy wording attempted to make the terminology clearer and in line with language used in the legislation. Officers had specifically considered whether home owners should indemnify DWP for any damage caused to roads by the DWP. It was decided to remove the reference to indemnity as acting reasonably, the DWP would not accept liability for damage caused to private roads and streets, and so an indemnity would not be required or add benefit. Instances where any resident refused to give permission to access a private street would be considered on a case by case basis.
In response to concern expressed about residents’ interpretation of the policy, the Director confirmed that, subject to approval of the report recommendations, residents that had recently received a letter regarding indemnity would receive further correspondence to explain the situation.
Resolved 1 That the proposal to retain existing household collection points be approved; 2 That the revised wording of the Recycle for Dorset Service policy circulated at the meeting, be approved and subject to the inclusion of a specific reference to narrow access routes; 3 That the collection of glass as a separate waste stream on narrow access routes be continued.
Reason for Decisions Implementing the adopted policy across the whole of the area covered by DWP would allow for this to be taken into account in future route optimisation projects.
Questions from Councillors 60 No questions were asked by members under Standing Order 20.
Meeting Duration: 10.00 am - 10.55 am
Page 54 Agenda Item 11
Management Committee 13th December 2016 Joint Risk Management Strategy For Decision
Briefholder Cllr J Cant, Finance and Assets
Senior Leadership Team Contact: J Vaughan, Strategic Director
Report Author: Christian Evans – Financial Performance Manager
Statutory Authority
The Joint Risk Management Strategy is reviewed every two years in line with the risk management action plan.
Purpose of Report
1 To set out the proposed updated Joint Risk Management Strategy for the Dorset Councils Partnership.
Officer Recommendations
2 That Members approve the updated DCP Joint Risk Management Strategy.
Reason for Recommendation
3 To ensure the Dorset Councils Partnership has an up to date strategy. The Joint Advisory Accounts and Audit Committee reviewed the updated strategy in December 2016 and have recommended it for approval to Management Committee.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 Following the establishment of a combined officer structure that serves the three sovereign councils, we have developed a Joint Risk Management Strategy.
5 The original Joint Risk Management Strategy was agreed by Management Committee in September 2011 and has been reviewed at least every 2 years. Page 55 6 The current Joint Risk Management Strategy will serve all three authorities and will continue to be reviewed every two years.
Report
7 The Joint Risk Management Strategy has been in place for 5 years and has operated well. The Joint Risk Management Strategy contains no major changes in how risks are managed.
8 The Joint Risk Management Strategy is due to be reviewed again in December 2018. Six monthly updates on the Corporate Strategic Risk Register and Risk Management will be submitted to the Joint Advisory Accounts & Audit Committee.
9 A Joint Corporate Risk Register has been developed and is now in place. This is reviewed on a 6 monthly basis.
10 Service Risk registers have also been developed and are now in place. They are reviewed by Heads of Service on a quarterly basis. The ‘very high’ and ‘high’ risks are reported in the Business Review report to Management Committee, Joint Advisory Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Joint Advisory Accounts and Audit Committee.
11 All Risk Register templates were developed in line with SWAP best practice.
12 A project management software system is in place for the Partnership. All projects must be processed through the Project In A Box (PIAB) system. Project managers must produce a risk register for each project. The format of each risk register is the same.
13 A Corporate Projects Risk Register has been included under Project Risks. This process is being developed in order to formally monitor the risks of large projects.
14 ‘Risk Management Inspections’ has been added into the strategy. Inspections should be carried out and recorded on Council assets to identify any defects. This record can then be used in defence of a claim against the Council.
15 Currently under development is ‘Information Asset Registers’ which has been included in the strategy and being reviewed by the newly appointed Information Governance Officer. This is a tool for Asset Owners to catalogue their information assets and manage the risks associated with them.
16 Data Protection Training Plan has been incorporated under Information Asset Registers to highlight the importance of training in mitigating Data Protection Risk.
17 Appendix 1 shows the Joint Risk Management Strategy.
Page 56 Implications
Corporate Plan
18 The Joint Risk Management Strategy forms part of the ‘Developing Successful Partnerships’ strategic priority.
Risk Management (including Health & Safety)
19 As detailed in this report.
Consultation and Engagement
20 The Joint Advisory Accounts & Audit Committee Zurich, Briefholder, Senior Leadership Team, Heads of Service and Corporate Managers and Internal Audit (SWAP).
Appendices
21 Appendix 1 – Joint Risk Management Strategy
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: Christian Evans – Financial Performance Manager Telephone: 01305 838312 Email: [email protected]
Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank
Dorset Councils Partnership
JOINT RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Issue date: December 2016
Next review date: December 2018
Introduction ...... 2
Strategy ...... 3
Page 59 Risk Management Objectives ...... 3
The Risk Management Process ...... 4
Risk Registers ...... 5
Scored Risk Matrix ...... 7 Risk control approaches ...... 8
Benefits of Risk Management ...... 8
Categories of Risk ...... 9
Organisation ...... 10
Roles and Responsibilities ...... 11 Members ...... 11 Senior Leadership Team ...... 11 Head of Financial Services ...... 11 Heads of Service / Corporate Managers and Project Leads ...... 12 Risk Owner / Lead owner ...... 12 Internal Audit ...... 12 Financial Performance Manager ...... 12 Safety Champions Group ...... 13 All Employees ...... 13
Partnership Risks ...... 13
Project Risks ...... 13
Risk Management Inspections ...... 14
Information Asset Registers ...... 14
Risk Management Review ...... 14
Introduction
The Joint Risk Management Strategy forms part of the Authority’s internal control and corporate governance arrangements.
The strategy explains the underlying approach to risk management, documents the roles and responsibilities of the Members, Senior Leadership Team and staff at all levels.
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 60 2 Strategy
Risk is defined as something that might have an impact on the achievement of the Dorset Council Partnership (DCP) objectives and its delivery of services to the community.
Risk Management can be defined as “the culture, processes and structures that are directed towards effective management of potential opportunities and threats to the organisation achieving its objectives”.
We use the risk management process to identify, evaluate and control risks. Risk management need not mean risk avoidance and may involve taking steps to reduce risk to an acceptable level or transfer risk to a third party. The DCP recognises that they have to deliver services in an increasingly litigious and risk-averse society. The DCP will therefore use risk management to promote innovation in support of the corporate strategy.
Risk is defined in the widest sense and is not confined to the traditional areas of insurance and Health & Safety. The majority of risks faced by the organisations are not insurable. Risk transfer is part of Risk Management, but so is risk retention and control.
Risk Management Objectives
The DCP has a long term commitment to risk management and it should be an inherent part of good management and governance practices. It should secure the assets and reputation of the DCP and ensure continued financial and organisational wellbeing. The DCP has the following objectives:-
Continue to integrate risk management into the culture of the DCP and raise awareness of the need to manage risk more effectively
Anticipate and respond to changing social, political, environmental, technological and legislative requirements
Prevent death, injury, damage and losses and reduce the cost of risk
Manage risk in accordance with best practice and raise awareness of the need for risk management by all of those connected with the DCP’s delivery of services
Ensure consistency throughout the DCP in the management of risk
These will be achieved by:
Establishing clear roles, responsibilities and reporting lines within the DCP for risk management
Embedding risk management into the DCP’s decision making process, service planning and delivery, project management and partnership working
Providing opportunities for training and shared learning on risk management across the DCP, including Members and partners
Offering a framework to identify priority risk areas, including the provision of risk registers at strategic and operational levels
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 61 3
Reinforcing the importance of effective risk management as part of the everyday work of employees
Monitoring arrangements and seeking continuous improvement
Identification and evaluation of risks associated with partners, contractors and other agencies and community groups
Ensuring robust Business Continuity arrangements are in place
Linking with the Information Governance framework to better understand our information and the risks associated with it.
Implementing best practice risk management arrangements in accordance with the DCP’s local code of Corporate Governance and the CIPFA Finance Advisory Network (FAN) guidance on the Annual Governance Statement
The Risk Management Process
Risk management should be a continuous and developing process which runs throughout the organisation and the implementation of the strategy, methodically addressing all risk surrounding the DCP’s past, present and future activities. It is essential that the incidence of risk is kept under review to see whether it has changed over time. New risks will be identified, control measures updated and some risks will cease to be relevant.
It is vital that everybody understands the role that they play in effective risk management.
The DCP is committed to establishing a systematic and consistent approach to risk identification, analysis, control, monitoring and review.
Identify Risks This involves the identification of risks, describing and recording them
Analyse Risks Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 This involves an estimation of the Page 62 likelihood of the identified risk4 and determining whether they are within the DCP’s appetite for risk
Risk monitoring and review Progress in managing risks should be monitored and reported to ensure actions are carried out to review the effectiveness of the control and to inform decision making
Control Risks
This involves the identification and
implementation of control measures to mitigate
the risk impact, the cost effectiveness of
implementing these measures and the
estimation and evaluation of residual risk (that
part of risk which cannot be managed away)
Risk Registers
The risk registers will document each identified risk as part of the risk management process and are a key feature of effectively embedding risk management throughout the DCP. All risk registers are entered onto the DCP’s performance management system (QPR) and should be reviewed on a quarterly basis, or more frequently if necessary, to ensure that new risks are identified and existing risks are updated in response to changing internal and external events.
A corporate strategic risk register has been produced along with service risk registers for each of the 12 services. All ‘Very High’ or ‘High’ risks are reported in the Business Review committee report each quarter.
In determining an appropriate response to a risk, the cost of control/risk management, and the impact of risks occurring will need to be balanced with the benefits of reducing risk. This means that we will not necessarily set up and monitor controls to counter risks where the cost and effort are disproportionate to the impact or expected benefit.
Control measures will need to be reviewed and the management of existing risks progressed. If there are now adequate controls in place some risks will no longer be relevant.
Using the likelihood and impact tables/matrix (below) the registers will include:
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 63 5
Raw risk score: a “worst case scenario” assuming that no controls are functioning
Current risk score: the present situation taking into account all controls that are believed to be functioning. All controls currently in place should be recorded
Target score: the situation we aim to reach once any further controls are put in place and are fully functioning. This records the residual risk that the DCP is willing to accept. An action plan of any additional controls to be put in place should be included. The target risk score may be the same as the current risk score.
The Lead officer responsible for managing the risk
Review and target dates
Progress made to date – add notes when reviewed
Likelihood Table
1 Rare <6% 2 Unlikely 6-20%
3 Possible 21-50%
4 Likely 51-80% 5 Almost certain >80%
Risk Table
Criticality of Service Strategic Health & (following Financial Priorities and Reputational Safety Business Opportunities Impact Assessment) Receives national / international Critical Complete attention with Service Level Fatality; failure to potential for One (i.e. Those Over multiple CATASTROPHIC deliver on a long term that present a £300,000 permanent 5 strategic impact on major risk to injuries priority public memory; public health Total loss in or safety) public confidence
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 64 6 Major injury Critical or illness Receives Service Level Major impact leading to national / Two (i.e. £100,000 (positive or long term international Those that MAJOR - negative) on incapacity/ attention with present a 4 £300,000 a strategic disability; medium term medium to priority multiple impact on major risk to significant public memory reputation / injuries finances) Moderate injury or Critical illness Moderate Service Level requiring Receives local impact Three (i.e. professional press attention £50,000 - (positive or Those that MODERATE intervention; with medium £100,000 negative) on present a 3 RIDDOR term impact on a strategic medium risk to reportable; public memory priority public health multiple or safety) minor injuries Critical Minor injury Receives local Service Level Minor impact or illness press attention Four (i.e. (positive or £10,000 - requiring but with likely Those that MINOR negative) on £50,000 minimal short term present a low 2 a strategic intervention impact on to medium risk priority or treatment public memory to reputation / finances) Critical None, or Negligible Service Level minimal impact Five (i.e. injury or Minor Up to (positive or Those that NEGLIGIBLE illness complaints or £10,000 negative) on present minor 1 requiring no rumours a strategic risk to public intervention priority health or or treatment safety)
Scored Risk Matrix
LIKELIHOOD 1 2 3 4 5 Almost Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Certain < 6 % 6% - 20% 21% - 50% 51% - 80% > 80% High High High Very High Very High 5 Catastrophic
5 10 15 20 25
Low Medium Medium High Very High 4 Major 4 8 12 16 20
IMPACT Low Low Medium Medium High 3 Moderate 3 6 9 12 15
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 65 7 Low Low Low Medium Medium 2 Minor 2 4 6 8 10
Low Low Low Low Low 1 Negligible 1 2 3 4 5
Risk control approaches Avoid the risk – not undertaking the activity that is likely to trigger the risk Reducing the risk – controlling the likelihood of the risk occurring, or controlling the impact of the consequences if the risk does occur Transfer the risk – handing the risk on elsewhere, either totally or in part e.g. through insurance, contractor or partner Accepting the risk – acknowledging that the ability to take effective action against some risks may be limited or that the cost of taking action may be disproportionate to the potential benefits gained.
The Members and Senior Leadership Team encourage the taking of controlled risks, the grasping of new opportunities and the use of innovative approaches to further the interests of the authority and achieve its objectives, provided the resultant exposure is within the organisations risk tolerance.
All personnel should be willing and able to take calculated risks to achieve the organisations objectives. The risks associated with the proposed actions and decisions should be properly identified, evaluated and managed to ensure the exposure is acceptable. Anything that has a sizeable impact should be discussed with the appropriate line manager.
Organisational policies and guidance manuals define where there are mandatory processes and procedures, e.g. Equal Opportunities policy etc. Compliance with these standards is required as non compliance constitutes an unacceptable risk.
Managers may take risk management decisions on the basis of their delegated authority and devolved responsibilities.
Benefits of Risk Management
When risk management is embedded within the existing planning and decision making process, it ensures implications are thought through, that the impact of initiatives, projects and decisions are considered, and that conflicts are balanced. This will influence success, achieve objectives and improve service delivery.
The Joint Risk Management Strategy provides assurance to Members and Management on the adequacy of arrangements for the conduct of business and the use of resources. Implementation of the strategy leads to a greater risk awareness and an improved control environment, which should mean fewer incidents and other control failures. In some cases this could result in lower insurance premiums, level of claims and lower total of uninsured losses.
Benefits
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 66 8 Protecting and adding value across the DCP service areas by supporting the achievement of the DCP’s objectives and corporate priorities, improved internal controls and service delivery.
Improved strategic, operational and financial management, improved decision making, planning and prioritisation, contributing to more efficient use/allocation of resources.
Consistent management of risk and opportunities, fewer surprises and potential disasters averted.
Protection of employees, clients, service users, members of the public and any other person to whom the DCP owes a duty of care. This will assist towards a cultural change in respect of morale and reputation.
Protection of property, equipment, vehicles and other assets, including information, will ensure efficient use of resources.
Categories of Risk
The DCP is faced with both strategic/corporate and operational/service risks that could impact on the achievement of the long-term and day to day delivery of services.
Political
Financial Social
Information / Environmental Partnerships / Technological / Contractual Legal
Joint Risk ManagementHuman Strategy – DecemberOrganisational 2016 Health & Reputational Resources Page 67Safety / 9 Physical
Political – those associated with the failure to deliver either local or central government policy
Financial – those affecting the ability of the DCP to meet its financial commitments; failure of major projects; internal and external audit requirements; failure to prioritise and allocate resources effectively; poor contract management; initiative overload
Social - those relating to the effects of changes in demographic, residential, or socio-economic trends on the DCP’s ability to deliver its corporate priorities
Information/Technological/Legal – those associated with the capacity of the DCP to use our information in the way we need, for as long as we need and deal with the pace/scale of technological change. It would also include consequences of information becoming unusable, lost or inappropriately accessed or internal failures on the DCP’s ability to deliver its objectives. The ability to evidence a defendable position in the event of legal actions and meet legislative demands affecting breaches of legislation (UK & EU).
Environmental – those relating to the environmental consequences of progressing the DCPs strategic objectives in terms of energy efficiency, pollution, recycling, landfill requirements, emissions etc.
Partnerships/contractual– those associated with the failure of partners/contractors to deliver services to an agreed cost and specification; compliance with procurement policies (internal/external); ensuring open and fair competition.
Human Resources – those associated with professional competence of staff; lack of training and development; over reliance on key personnel; ineffective change/project management; recruitment and selection issues.
Organisational – those associated with the review of service and delivering continuous improvement.
Health & Safety/Physical – those related to fire, security, accident prevention and health & safety which pose a risk to both staff and the public; safeguarding and accounting for physical assets. Complying with the Health & Safety at work act 1974, and all associated regulations.
Reputational – those associated with the changing needs of customers; ensuring appropriate consultation; avoiding bad public and media relations.
Organisation
The DCP will review the effectiveness of risk management every two years.
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 68 10
North Dorset District Council – Cabinet is responsible for approving the authority’s Risk Management Strategy. West Dorset District Council - Executive Committee is responsible for approving the authority’s Risk Management Strategy. Weymouth & Portland Borough Council – Management Committee is responsible for approving the authority’s Risk Management Strategy.
The Joint Advisory Accounts & Audit Committee will approve the action plan and approach to Risk Management for the DCP.
Internal Audit (South West Audit Partnership) will carry out an independent assessment of the risk management system.
The DCP Chief Executive has overall responsibility for Risk Management. They will be assisted by:
Senior Leadership Team The Head of Financial Services and the Financial Performance Manager Heads of Service / Corporate Managers Members of Joint Advisory Accounts & Audit Committee Internal Audit (SWAP) Project Leads Safety Champions group
Roles and Responsibilities
Members To gain an understanding of risk management and its benefits Ensure that an effective strategy is in place to manage risks throughout the DCP Joint Advisory Accounts & Audit Committee terms of reference should include members responsibility for corporate risk management Be aware of risk management implications of decisions To ensure that officers develop and implement a corporate approach to risk management To receive regular reports re: o Corporate risk management progress o Highest-level risks (via quarterly Business Review reports) o Major project risks (via reports from the project lead / Strategic Director)
Senior Leadership Team
To ensure the Joint Risk Management Strategy is implemented and observed by all services in the DCP. To ensure that all significant risks are identified affecting service delivery across all 12 services. Manage the DCP Corporate Strategic Risk Register.
Head of Financial Services Champion risk management
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 69 11 Responsible, in conjunction with the Financial Performance Manager / Financial Resources Manager, brokers and insurers, for minimising the overall cost of claims
Heads of Service / Corporate Managers and Project Leads Be responsible for risk management in their service areas by managing a range of operational risk registers plus a risk register for each major project Carry out risk assessments Ensure that risk registers are routinely reviewed by risk owners/lead officers and that appropriate actions are taken to mitigate risks Ensure that all service areas have risk registers Carry out risk assessment for partnership working and ensure that all partners produce a risk assessment Ensure that all partnership risks are regularly reviewed Evidence risk sharing Produce a report for all major projects to support strategic policy decision, to include initiation documents, risk assessments and sustainability impact appraisal
Risk Owner / Lead owner Regularly review (on a quarterly basis) the risk register to ensure that all risks have been properly identified, add any new risks and update existing risks and control measures. Carry out any necessary actions on the risk action plan to mitigate risk to the target level within the set deadline. Discuss risk registers with their team, review, moderate scores, update QPR and add any new risks which have been identified through this team process.
Internal Audit (SWAP) To provide an independent assessment of the corporate risk management arrangements To provide an independent assessment of the implementation of risk management and effectiveness of the risk management strategy When planning an audit, review the relevant risk registers to ensure that they are up to date Assess the effectiveness of key controls as part of the audit of the service area Feedback any new risks identified, or failures of key controls, to the risk owner/lead officer so that the risk register and/or risk action plan can be updated Include actions in the audit action plan as appropriate
Financial Performance Manager To support the DCP in the effective development, implementation, and review of the Joint Risk Management Strategy Implement the effective embedding of risk management across the DCP Raising the awareness of the risk management process Assist officers to maintain both strategic and operational risk registers in QPR Deliver training Minimise the overall cost of inevitable claims that do arise Support the risk management programme by supplying advice and data Identify and address cross-cutting risk/risk management issues Report the highest-level risks via the quarterly Business Review reporting process
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 70 12 Safety Champions Group Look at all areas of health, safety and risk for the DCP Undertake safety tours against every occupied site within the DCP and provide feedback from the tours for analysis by the safety champion group The group is made up of a wide spectrum of relevant officers from across the DCP Report issues which cannot be resolved or have more serious consequences are submitted to the Joint Safety Panel made up of Councillors, Service Managers and Unions
All Employees To understand their role in the risk management process including accountability for individual risks Undertake mandatory health & safety induction and refresher training Promptly report any new risks or failure of existing control measures To manage risk effectively in their jobs Participate in team discussions regarding existing and new risks, assist in moderating and reviewing the scores and control measures
Partnership Risks
As the DCP is increasingly using partnership working to deliver its priorities and services, it is essential that:
The risks associated with working in partnership with other organisations have been identified. Some of these risks can be managed through formal contracts and partnership agreements
Ensure that partnerships have effective risk management procedures in place
A Partnership risk assessment should be carried out prior to entering into any partnership and should be monitored throughout. These details will be contained in the DCP ‘Partnership toolkit’.
Ensure the Corporate Strategic Risk Register is reviewed on a regular basis
Ensure Service ‘very high’ and ‘high’ risks are reported in the Business Review report on a quarterly basis.
Project Risks
The DCP has introduced a project management software system. The Project In A Box (PIAB) system enables a standard project management process across all projects.
All project documents are also in a standard format. This enables consistency and the ability to monitor all corporate projects in one area.
A Corporate Projects Risk Register process is being created in order to formally monitor and improve transparency for the risks associated with large scale projects. These risks will feed into the Corporate Strategic Risk Register.
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 71 13 The Corporate Projects Risk Register and the process for reporting issues is currently being formalised.
Risk Management Inspections
Risk Management Inspections are required on a regular basis to identify defects of land and property owned or operated by the DCP.
An Inspection Record is a key document with which to record any defects, including relevant details, or to note ‘No defect found’ if appropriate. This document can then be used in order to defend a claim against the DCP.
Heads of Service / Corporate Managers are responsible for nominating a delegated officer to carry out and record the inspections. They will identify how often these inspections are undertaken which will be dependant on the type of risk, for example Weymouth Beach inspections are carried out daily in peak season.
For 2016/17 Zurich Municipal will provide inspection training to show members of staff how to carry out inspections and what information to record.
Information Asset Registers
Information Asset Registers (IAR) are currently under development. They are a tool to categorise individual pieces of information into manageable groupings.
Each Head of Service or Corporate Manager will be an Information Asset Owner, with responsibility for completing an IAR and managing risks associated with the information in their service area on an annual basis, or more frequently if required. This role provides assurance to the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO),
The IAR only provides space for a high-level risk assessment, any medium or high information risks requiring greater visibility and monitoring should be promoted to the service risk register.
Further guidance will be provided to Information Asset Owners.
In relation to this, a Data Protection Training Plan has been created to address how staff process personal data and information so that the DCP is best equipped in meeting its data protection obligations.
Data Protection training will be available to all staff as an e-learning module by the end of 2016, with a view to provide in-person training targeted at employees who handle personal data as part of their job role.
The training will reduce the likelihood of fine or enforcement and prevent regulatory action against, and/or reputational damage to, the organisation, and damage and distress to individuals.
Risk Management Review
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 72 14 The effectiveness of the Strategy and information on the content of the risk registers will be monitored and reviewed as outlined above. The Joint Risk Management Strategy for the DCP will be reviewed every two years in line with the risk management action plan.
The Corporate Strategic Risk Register and Risk Management will be reviewed and updated every six months and submitted to the Joint Advisory Accounts & Audit Committee.
Joint Risk Management Strategy – December 2016 Page 73 15 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12
Management Committee 13th November 2017 Investment Decisions
Portfolio Holder(s)/ Briefholder
Cllr Jeff Cant - Leader
Senior Leadership Team Contact: M Prosser, Chief Executive
Report Author: Stuart Caundle – Assistant Chief Executive
Statutory Authority Local Government Act 1972 and Localism Act 2011
Purpose of Report
1 To invite Members to agree an addition to the Scheme of Delegations to permit prompt decision making when an investment opportunity requires a decision prior to the next available Management Committee.
Officer Recommendations
2 To recommend to Council:
that it delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and, if available, the brief holders responsible for Finance and assets; to make all decisions he/she considers necessary or expedient to acquire land or property assets on behalf of the Borough Council; so long as there are funds available from a budget within the control of the Management Committee.
Reason for Decision
3 To enable property and land assets, principally for investment purposes, to be acquired for the Borough Council in circumstances when the opportunity might be lost by waiting until the next available Management Committee meeting.
Page 75 Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 The Council faces a significant financial challenge as reflected in its medium term financial plan. One of the work streams identified to tackle the challenge is the generation of commercial income. One, and perhaps the most readily available, source of commercial income is likely to be investment in commercial property. In the market place, good commercial opportunities often attract significant interest very quickly. If such an opportunity were potentially to be of interest to the Council, it may well have to act quickly to secure a deal; even though formal contracts might take many weeks more to deliver. Were an attractive proposition to come onto the market; it is entirely possible that the next available Management Committee at which a decision could be made might be 6 or more weeks away. In such circumstances, the opportunity might be lost.
5. For that reason, Members are asked to consider granting a general delegation to the Chief Executive, to pursue such an opportunity on the Council’s behalf.
Implications
Corporate Plan 6. Building a stronger local economy and developing successful partnerships.
Financial 7. The financial implications are set out in the delegation; as it will enable the Chief Executive to commit funding available to the Management Committee.
Consultation and Engagement
8. None undertaken.
Background Papers
None
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: Stuart Caundle Telephone: X 8040 Email: [email protected] Page 76 Agenda Item 13
MANAGEMENT 13th DECEMBER 2016 WESTERN DORSET ECONOMIC GROWTH STRATEGY
For Decision
Portfolio Holder Cllr Farquharson
Senior Leadership Team Contact: M Hamilton,Strategic Director
Report Author: Nick Thornley
Statutory Authority Local Government Act 2000 – Promotion of economic and social wellbeing
Purpose of Report
1 To agree a ‘high level’ economic growth strategy for Western Dorset, prior to consideration of a more detailed action plan early next year.
Officer Recommendations
2 That the Western Dorset Economic Growth Strategy be adopted as the basis for consultation with key stakeholders and the production of a detailed action plan.
Reason for Decision
3 To agree an economic growth strategy, appropriate for Western Dorset, to both inform the work of the four councils and others engaged in Economic Regeneration and to set out an expression of economic need and opportunity for Western Dorset.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 For some time, local authorities have been encouraged by central government to prioritise support for economic growth. This is reflected in the corporate plans of the three Dorset Councils Partnership councils where ‘contribute to a stronger local economy’ has been agreed as a corporate priority.
5. In recent years, West Dorset District Council and Weymouth and Portland Borough Council have worked toPage deliver 77 economic regeneration in accordance with the adopted Priorities for Growth 2014 -2020 economic growth strategy. North Dorset District Council has worked to deliver its Economic Development Strategy for Action 2012-2015.
5 The creation of the Dorset Councils Partnership, an opportunity to work collaboratively with Dorset County Council and a conclusion to the term of the North Dorset strategy presents the council with an opportunity to consider and agree an Economic Strategy for Western Dorset that:
Builds on the previous joint strategy for West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland Develops the cross border working that has been developed through the Western Dorset Growth Corridor concept and defines an area which contrasts with Dorset’s eastern conurbation Captures the economic growth ambitions and unique challenges of the area Demonstrates a joined-up approach to the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership and local businesses
6 The strategy has been developed and informed by a number of different activities:
The promotion of the Dorset LEP’s “Priority Projects Refresh” in summer 2015 across the Dorset Councils Partnership area identified significant growth ambitions from organisations across the three councils’ area. An evidence based assessment of the economic conditions, opportunities and challenges for the area has been carried out by using established economic forecasting models at Dorset County Council. This has been refined to reflect anticipated or known local conditions which may be different to the forecasting models algorithms A consideration of the anticipated need for and delivery of new housing and employment sites as identified in both the West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015, and the North Dorset Local Plan Part One 2016 Collaborative working with colleagues from across the Dorset Councils Partnership and Dorset County Council
7 In addition, following a successful bid by Weymouth and Portland and West Dorset councils to Dorset LEP under Growth Deal 2 in 2015 (for delivery on 2016), a number of research studies using external expertise have been completed across all or part of the Dorset Councils Partnership geography looking at:
For the whole area: Employment and Skills Transport including rail and parking
For the Western Dorset Growth Corridor area only: Tourism Culture Page 78 Public Ream Events
For Weymouth only: Town Centre masterplan site specific assessments
8 The outcomes and action plans from these studies, together with the plans and aspirations of 2 BIDs and 4 Coastal Community teams have been used to both inform the strategy, subject of this report, and the developing action plan.
9 The strategy has a vision to have enabled or delivered by 2033: 20,000 new homes including affordable homes 13,200 new full-time equivalent jobs (plus new jobs at the Dorset Enterprise Zone) a minimum of 70 hectares of new employment land; an increase in the proportion of workforce achieving Level 4+ qualifications from 25% to 35% and; an additional £564 million of GVA from the Western Dorset Growth area
10. The strategy has been grouped into five action areas or themes:
A. Infrastructure – addressing both physical (road and rail) and electronic (broadband and mobile) connectivity
B. Homes and employment sites – addressing the delivery of new homes, including affordable homes and the release of employment land for business growth
C. Employment and Skills - addressing skills shortages and raising skills levels to create a highly employable and economically productive population that can generate economic growth, improved productivity and a sustainable local economy.
D. Business and Sectors – addressing productivity, start up and business survival rates and supporting growth in targeted sectors, supporting tourism businesses through media campaigns and the development of the visit-Dorset website, and working with the Dorset Tourism Association
E. - Assets and Policy – addressing opportunity for economic growth through use or re-use of existing public sector property assets, and evaluation and development of policy, existing and new, to contribute to local economic growth
10. The emerging themes and priorities have been considered by both a wide joint officer Group drawn from DCP and DCC, and by the Western Dorset Growth Corridor Member Board (comprising Leaders and Briefholders/ Portfolio holders from all 4 participating councils) at both development and final draft stages. The Western Dorset Growth Corridor Member Board has Page 79 now agreed this for formal presentation to the Councils and for wider external consultation.
10 The draft strategy is presented at appendix 1 for consideration.
Implications
Corporate Plan The Council has a corporate priority: Building a Stronger Local Economy
Financial There are no financial implications directly associated with this report. Changes to current Government incentives such as new homes bonus, and the introduction of new incentives, such as business rates retention are likely to impact on the councils resources. Actions in this strategy may increase positive and lessen negative impacts.
Equalities There are no equalities implications directly associated with this report. The final strategy and action plan will be subject to an Equalities Impact Assessment.
Environmental There are no environmental impacts directly associated with this report
Economic Development This report establishes a strategic direction for economic development for the council
Risk Management (including Health & Safety) There are no risks directly associated with this report
Human Resources There are no human resource impacts directly associated with this report
Consultation and Engagement A process of consultation will commence early in 2017
Appendices Appendix 1 – Draft Western Dorset Economic Growth Strategy
Background Papers None
Footnote Page 80 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: Martin Hamilton Telephone: 01305 838086 Email: [email protected]
Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank Western Dorset Economic Growth Strategy
An Economic Growth Strategy for: Weymouth & Portland, West & North Dorset
Design to be developed
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 3 Page 83 1 WORK IN PROGRESS DRAFT ONLY Version 1C 131016 2. Our Vision And Economic Growth Strategy ...... 4
3. A Distinctive Part of Dorset...... 6
4. Economic Assessment And Sector Priorities...... 7
5. Strategic Economic Programme ...... 13
6. Governance...... 15
Page 84 2 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 1. INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the Western Dorset Economic Growth Strategy – the joint Economic Growth Strategy of North Dorset District, West Dorset District, Weymouth and Portland Borough and Dorset County Councils – the Western Dorset Economic Growth Partnership.
Economic Growth is a key part of the National agenda, with Local Enterprise Partnerships contributing to the national plan through their local visions. Our strategy sets out how we will contribute to Dorset’s Economic Ambition described in the Dorset LEPs Strategic Economic Plan, and how it will address the economic needs of our area while respecting our natural environment.
Our strategy describes both our aspiration for the area and also that of others so that it is truly an economic growth plan for Western Dorset.
It is apparent in times of change – political and fiscal - that the Western Dorset Economic Growth Partnership cannot achieve its economic vision without the support and participation of key partners and businesses.
We look to our Schools, Colleges, and Universities to support our identified skills needs not just for our young people but also those in employment looking to or needing to upskill.
We look to our business growth partners and agencies to work with us and support our business growth and productivity expectations.
We look to national and local developers to bring forward new homes and employment sites that will accommodate our growing population, and provide the suitable modern business environments that will facilitate XXX growth.
We pledge to keep economic growth at the forefront in our policy development and implementation.
------Signatures and names of the 4 council leaders to be entered
Page 85 3 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 2. OUR VISION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH STRATEGY Western Dorset “the natural place to do business”
By 2033 the Economic Growth Strategy will have supported and delivered:
20,000 new homes including affordable homes 13,200 new full-time equivalent jobs (plus new jobs at the Dorset Enterprise Zone) a minimum of 70 hectares of new employment land; the proportion of the workforce achieving Level 4+ qualifications from 25% to 35% and; an additional £564 million of GVA from the Western Dorset area
‘
Our Principal Growth Zones: The most urban locations are set within functional economic areas of Weymouth, Dorchester and Portland in the West and Gillingham, Blandford, Shaftesbury in the North. The economic growth aspiration for these two distinct economic growth areas is to achieve a better balance and more sustainable future for the towns whilst releasing the major housing, employment and investment potential these two economic areas have.
Our Rural Growth Area: Most of our rural area is in two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and includes the towns of Bridport and Sherborne along with the smaller settlements around these growth towns, such as Beaminster and Sturminster Newton and many thriving villages. These towns and villages are essential to both our local economic growth and to rural Dorset’s future prosperity.
Our Coastal Communities: Incorporating our World Heritage designated Jurassic coastline and marine environment at Lyme Regis and Bridport, and the strategically important harbours at Portland and Weymouth.
Our Growth Strategy has the flexibility to ensure appropriate growth in higher quality jobs, improvements in productivity, leading to increased skills and higher wage levels that are more comparable with the rest of Dorset and England. It will also ensure economic growth in each of the different areas is compatible with its local housing and population growth plans. Whilst the Strategy has been established to meet the strategic economic growth opportunity and demand across Western Dorset, economic development programmes that are more localised will continue to be supported in our smaller settlements.
A snapshot of the shared economic ambition across our area is expressed in table 2.1and illustrates the most significant economic infrastructure assets and connections across the Western Dorset area along with some key planned and potential development projects from many partners across Western Dorset. These physical developments, accompanied by our sector, skills and policy interventions will deliver our growth ambitions.
Page 86 4 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 Table 2.1 – Western Dorset – economic growth ambition and opportunity
Page 87 5 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 3. A DISTINCTIVE PART OF DORSET
Western Dorset is the natural place to do business. It is a resilient and diverse economy set within the only natural UNESCO designated World Heritage site in England – The Jurassic Coast – and with extensive Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is the home to many successful national and international companies and renowned brands.
Our area of Western Dorset covers from Lyme Regis to Gillingham and Portland to Sherborne, and is an area of 1,733 square kilometres1 and home to 235,509 residents2 and 12,405 businesses3.
It is a successful area with obvious strengths such as the landscape and coast which help to drive tourism, inspire creativity, and attract people to live.
The Economic Growth Strategy is set in two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a World Heritage Site coastline recognised internationally and nationally. Our towns and settlements are historic in nature with a high proportion of listed buildings. This high quality natural and built environment offers a sense of place, a lifestyle and a quality of life creating a distinctive character that will be enhanced by the Strategy.
Our new job opportunities will come from the development of our key employment and housing sites in our urban locations and growth towns. We will also sustain our important agricultural and coastal landscape and rural businesses, helping to improve their productivity.
The quality of the local environment gives the area a competitive advantage that is attractive to businesses and residents that want a more balanced lifestyle and quality of life, and is also an attractor for visitors to our area.
1 Source: Combined areas from adopted local plans 2 Source: GeoWessex : 2014 Mid Year Estimates ONS 3 Source: GeoWessex: UK Business Activity Size Location 2014 (ONS) Page 88 6 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 4. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND SECTOR PRIORITIES
Our area is a beautiful place in which to live and work with a perceived affluence that masks some significant underpinning challenges that must be addressed to achieve growth:
New homes completion rates below target Housing affordability4 The “demographic crunch” – high numbers of elderly people, declining numbers of working age and young population The “productivity challenge” – low skills levels, high proportion of lower value sectors High dependence on sectors in decline
This strategy is underpinned by an evidence based assessment, identifying issues, needs and opportunities and is also informed by a range of research and feasibility studies supported by the Dorset LEP through Growth Deal 2.
The strategy is ambitious and seeks to deliver a level and quality of economic growth greater than would have been achieved without the proposed interventions. This is illustrated in the following charts which take gross value added (GVA) and full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs as the main indicators of economic growth.
The assessment analysed and assessed key ‘layers’ of our local economy such as infrastructure, housing, business and sectors. This has helped to identify potential gaps and barriers to economic growth, the possible interventions needed to help support growth and
4 Ratio Lower Quartile House Prices to Lower Quartile earnings 2015 >8.7 - data.gov.uk
Page 89 7 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 investment, and potential integration and collaborative work with partners across the area. A longer term strategic economic vision has been developed which draws out the crucial infrastructure requirements, clear timescales and a realistic projection of outputs in terms of employment, homes, skills and productivity.
The economic assessment projections are derived from the Cambridge Econometrics Local Economy Forecasting Model (LEFM) for Dorset 2015. The following graphs illustrate the outcome of three economic growth scenarios in terms of growth in full-time equivalent jobs and GVA across Western Dorset. Each scenario starts from a baseline of 2011 Census of Population workplace based employment data, then applies varying assumptions:-
Scenario 1 (blue) – employment growth rates from the LEFM have been applied for the period 2013-2033, with some adjustments for local knowledge Scenario 2 (red) – employment growth rates for sectors adjusted to reflect aspirations for growth, and anticipated decline, in identified sectors (see sector table page 12) Scenario 3 (yellow) – as scenario 2, and adding anticipated impact of growth at the Dorset Enterprise Zone
This strategy, and the subsequent action plan, are based on achieving scenarios 2 and 3. Balanced and sustainable growth is essential, and the levels of growth projected are consistent with the provision of residential and employment land in current local plans.
FTE (000s) 102
100 5.2
98 3.1 96
94
92
90
88
DCP Scenerio 1 DCP Scenario 2 DCP +EZ Growth 86
84 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033
Chart 4.1: the higher level of growth proposed by the Economic Growth Strategy would result in an additional 3,000 FTE jobs above trend, with a further 2000 directly and indirectly as a result of the Enterprise Zone.
Page 90 8 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 GVA (£m 2008) 6,500
6,000 £830m £564m 5,500
5,000
4,500
4,000
DCP Scenerio 1 DCP Scenario 2 DCP +EZ Growth 3,500
3,000 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033
Chart 4.2: the more ambitious growth scenario would result in an additional £564 million of GVA to the Western Dorset area, and a further £266m if the impact of the Enterprise Zone is considered. The evidence based economic assessment has helped to identify common need and individual opportunity rather than a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. This method has enabled the Strategy to identify and establish strategic interventions aimed at maximising economic growth in key areas whilst recognising the distinctive character of local economies so that appropriate and sustainable economic growth can take place.
The higher levels of jobs and business growth are associated with the development of employment sites and the additional FTEs that could be potentially accommodated on these.
The new Dorset Enterprise Zone is established (operative from 1 April 2017) and focussed on the development of an exemplar Technology Park (previously Winfrith) in Purbeck and lies mid-way between Dorchester/Weymouth and Bournemouth/Poole. The delivery of the Enterprise Zone will play a key role in serving the needs of the surrounding locality, the regional and wider business communities.
The ambitious level of growth proposed by this scenario will require collaboration, concerted effort and investment of resources from a broad range of local and national partners. Such ambition and determination is especially required at times of economic uncertainty, such as those currently experienced in the UK.
The ambitious, but realistic, growth scenario is based upon a number of assumptions about the performance of key sectors in the local economy.
Collaboration and synergy between sectors is crucial and productive. The local economy takes strength from its diversity, resilience and ability to withstand the worst of global downturns and volatility.
Page 91 9 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 New and affordable homes The delivery of housing has yet to achieve target rates in Local Plans for a number of years. A shortage of supply and growing demand from net in-migration5 makes it difficult to attract or retain key employees. Low wages and high house prices continue to make it difficult for particularly our young people to afford to live and work locally.
The ‘productivity challenge’ In recognition of the importance of people and skills in contributing to the productivity of the Western Dorset economy, one of the key challenges in Western Dorset is the limited supply of labour (as shown by decreasing working age residents and high levels of economically active and employed residents). In parallel, but less tangible, is the challenge of overcoming the perception of the area as a ‘returning to retire’ destination.
There is a need to drive growth through increasing the skill levels of residents. Higher skilled workers help to drive productivity which highlights the importance of growing talent in Western Dorset but there is a need to retain this talent locally to capture the benefits of this investment. This illustrates the importance of both upskilling and reskilling residents to meet the changing shape of skills demand.
The ‘demographic crunch’ Dorset is characterised by a population with a particularly high proportion of elderly people, falling numbers of working age and young population; this means that a significant proportion of the workforce due to retire within 10 years.
Looking forward, projections for Dorset as a whole suggest negative growth in the working age population, creating the potential for a severely constrained labour market when considered against the scale of future labour requirements.
There is also a need to increase young people’s exposure to local employers whilst in learning to improve employability and productivity.
The digital infrastrucuture is vital to local economic growth. The Dorset Digital Infrastructure Strategy which informs this strategy, aims to stimulate significant economic growth by
5 Internal migration estimates 2015 - ONS
Page 92 10 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 providing Dorset businesses and learners with access to high speed digital connectivity that will contribute to Dorset becoming more skilled, competitive and sustainable.
The development and investment in the transport infrastructure is an enabler to economic growth and has to be developed whilst enhancing our natural and built environment. The Western Dorset Economic Growth Partnership will work to deliver the infrastructure programme for the public transport network, the Ports, roads, rail and cycle networks that are vital to the success of this Strategy.
Sectors There are a number of important sectors which will drive growth in Western Dorset. The opportunity to increase the value of these sectors should be sought. There is also recognition of the importance of enabling sectors to meeting population needs (e.g. health and social care) and there is a need to develop quality and excellence in these sectors. In some aspects, this is already underway.
The economic assessment has identified sectors that, through appropriate local intervention and support, will: provide significant growth, either above trend or in contrast to the regional and national predictions (table 4.1) contribute to local growth if local challenges are addressed (table 4.2) require intervention to avoid a shock to our economy (table 4.3)
Our economy is predominantly made up of small businesses. A small increase in productivity from a large number of businesses will make a significant contribution to our economic growth. Increased Broadband coverage and speeds, 4G connectivity and access to business support will aide an increase in productivity. 4.1 – Growth sectors to be actively supported Sector and 2016 Description 2033 Growth Scenario Interventions Position ADVANCED Significant, well Scope to deliver Account Management ENGINEERING & established, strong local growth, with DIT (former UKTI) MANUFACTURI knowledge intensive and develop supply Cluster development NG sector, including chains, in high and Skills businesses with medium-high Enterprise Zone 2,600 jobs strong international technology 4% of GVA reputation manufacturing Focus on aerospace marine and defence CONSTRUCTION Key role to play in Increase in jobs and Housing development supporting productivity Employment site 9,000 jobs economic growth anticipated development 10% of GVA and housing Need to ensure provision availability of skilled New and adaptable skills/technologies workforce required ICT SERVICES Crucial sector to Productivity Superfast and Ultrafast underpin economic anticipated to grow broadband 1,000 jobs growth above national 1% of GVA Superfast and average ultrafast broadband Support and being rolled out infrastructure for across the area other sectors growth
Page 93 11 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 4.2 Sectors requiring specific interventions to address barriers and boost growth Sector and 2016 Description 2033 Growth Scenario Interventions Position HEALTH & Crucial sector for Significant job growth Establishment of Care SOCIAL CARE Dorset given the anticipated Academy at demographic Link to e-health and Weymouth College 11,300 jobs crunch e-care solutions 9% of GVA Issues around training and retention of workforce to address LAND BASED Significant impact on Agri-tech a priority Investment in facilities INDUSTRIES stewardship of the sector for investment and training at environment and development of Kingston Maurward 2,900 jobs Traditional sectors workforce skills College 2% of GVA due to geology and Collaborative Joint South West historical approach with promotion of inward development neighbouring areas investment Scope to improve opportunities productivity through application of technology TOURISM & Traditionally a major Job numbers to Working with DTA to LEISURE part of the Dorset remain steady, but support delivery of economy invest to improve the Destination 7,000 jobs Need to address Dorset ‘offer’ and management plan 5% of GVA issues of seasonality address issues Skills development low pay, low skills and limited career opportunities
4.3 Sectors predicted to change requiring mitigation Sector and 2016 Description 2033 Growth Scenario Interventions Position Financial and Average Marginal falls in jobs DLEP focus on financial professional representation in and GVA services offer of services Dorset economy anticipated, south/central England Financial services reflecting national to attract inward 7,600 jobs focused on trends investment 12% of GVA Bournemouth/Poole Public Currently the largest Likely to experience Entrepreneurship administration employment sector continuing reduction programme to defence across area in jobs and encourage skills & Highly skilled investment knowledge retention 7,900 jobs workforce Public sector 12% of GVA apprenticeship programme Retail Retail sector has Jobs fall anticipated Weymouth Town experienced job in line with national Centre masterplan 8,900 jobs losses and closures in trends and changes Dorchester retail led 9% of GVA line with national in retail patterns development trends Changing nature of Entrepreneurship Impact upon vitality retail towards online programme and viability of town Reduced centres requirement for multiples to have presence in smaller locations
Page 94 12 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 It is evident that not all economic growth will come from the delivery of employment sites as there are limitations for the amount of employment land available and the need to protect our local environment.
It is therefore vital to raise the productivity through development of the infrastructure, skills and knowledge and encouraging innovation and enterprise. The new Apprenticeship Levy will contribute to raising skills and productivity but is focussed on larger companies so business support for the SME and micro business will be an important part of the Strategy.
The economic assessment and recent studies has produced a clear direction for the Strategy but also gives a strong warning that unless there is intervention the local economy it will start to fail between the next 5 and 10 years bringing significant pressure to our economic sustainability and growth and the quality of life.
Page 95 13 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 5. STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PROGRAMME
Whilst the Economic Growth Strategy sets a vision and direction towards 2033, it is a living document that will be based on 5-year Strategic Economic Programme modules to allow the impact of our growth plan to be measured, enable a period of time to reflect, react and where appropriate adjust to meet economic need and/or opportunity arising, and allow for the changing role of the public sector and other players.
A number of key studies have been undertaken as part of the economic assessment, which have been supported by the Dorset LEP, that has enabled a wide range of engagement with partners, businesses, organisations, FE, students and young people. The outcomes from these studies have generated a large number of proposed actions for both the Councils, businesses (sectors) and partner organisations.
The outcomes from these studies are being used to inform a wider Economic Growth Action Plan with the private sector, organisations and FE leading in relevant areas and which the Councils will support.
The studies have an economic growth focus and some, such as Transport and Movement, have been undertaken specifically to enable economic growth. The range of studies include:
Transport and Movement Assessment of transport and movement to test the physical infrastructure requirements of redevelopment sites and how they relate to the existing infrastructure and car parking including Park & Ride; Assessment of possible improvements to the traffic system to encourage use of public transport; Assess improvements and creation of more pedestrianisation and; Improvement to bus and rail interchanges.
Employment and Skills Study Creating highly skilled employment in the area, as well as fostering and increasing the potential of existing sectors; Ensuring all our young people are able to reach their potential and; Encourage and support all residents to enter into meaningful employment.
Weymouth Town Centre Key Sites Economic viability of the redevelopment sites; Assessment of under-utilised sites Assessment of a greater range of food and entertainment based family-friendly uses and; Improve the image of the town centre and to reflect the character and heritage of the town, to include leisure, heritage, public realm, bars, cafes and restaurants as well as shops
Culture and Tourism Feasibility to develop the tourism brand; Assess improvements to service and quality standards across tourism and heritage; The need to diversify and improve the product and widen the market appeal and extend the length of season); Festivals and Events assessment; Assess future policy of Council owned hotels identifying investment opportunities and; Page 96 14 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 Assessment of the creation and delivery of new focal spaces for the town centre
The 5-year Strategic Economic Programme sets out the principal areas for intervention across five strategic economic themes:
A. Infrastructure There is a vital need to improve electronic and physical connectivity, particularly through high-speed broadband, establishment of an efficient and sustainable transport infrastructure to enable delivery of the economic potential of the area. Collaborate and co-ordinate with all partners to make the area more connected for business, learning, leisure and visiting.
Key Points: An infrastructure that supports economic growth Digital Infrastructure – Ultrafast and broadband rollout and improved mobile (broadband G3, G4) coverage Improving digital and physical connectivity Integrated spatial and infrastructure planning
Strategic Outcomes to be achieved: improved access to employment and learning, improved productivity, improved access to markets, increase in GVA, less of a need to travel, when travelling public transport better option, reduced congestion, reduced carbon footprint and improved quality of life.
Key Projects: 1. Superfast and Ultrafast Broadband 2. Weymouth Inner Harbour Flood Defence 3. Enmore Green Link Road 4. North South road rail routes and connectivity 5. Dorchester Transport network improvements
B. Homes and employment sites Housing affordability is a significant issue with housing affordability ratios higher than nationally. The lack of affordable housing is a major barrier to economic growth and in particular to retaining and/or attracting young people to the local labour market. There is a history over the past twenty years of employment land not being brought to the market without public sector intervention. High housing values and good returns on investment for residential development, coupled with low rents and poor returns on investment for employment site development deter developers and investors from delivering the employment land allocations.
Key Points: The actual rate of new homes delivery is well below the Local Plan allocation and projections, Opportunity to attract and retain younger people using the Government’s new starter homes initiative; Delivering suitable employment land and workspaces; Promote the supply of land and provide real incentives; Challenges of bringing sites forward and current infrastructure issues
Strategic Outcomes to be achieved: To establish an affordable housing programme aimed at the economically active population, unlock major housing sites generating new homes, the local construction sector has increased employment opportunities and has a requirement for a higher skilled workforce that is supported by local education and training providers. Page 97 15 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 Key Projects: 1. Weymouth Town Centre Masterplan 2. North Dorset Employment Sites 3. Accelerated housing delivery 4. Dorchester Town Centre Retail development
C. Employment and skills Investment in skills and training is vital to be able to create a highly employable and economically productive population that can generate economic growth, improved productivity and a sustainable local economy.
Key Points: • Wages are below the regional and national levels, workforce that is less skilled than the national average and many jobs in lower skilled occupations; • The ‘demographic crunch’ - an ageing population, relatively stagnant population growth in Weymouth and Portland, and a falling working age and young population. • Projections for Dorset as a whole suggest negative growth in the working age population, creating the potential for a severely constrained labour market. • Equitable access to quality education, training and employment opportunities, recognising that there are physical gaps which exist (particularly in the North and West) • A need to enhance connections between people, jobs and skills infrastructure. • The ‘productivity challenge’ -the importance of people and skills in contributing to the productivity of the local economy, • Limited supply of labour (decreasing working age residents and high levels of economically active and employed residents). • The perception of the area as a ‘returning to retire’ destination, which highlights the importance of growing talent in WDGC but there is a need to retain higher skilled workers locally. who help to drive productivity • Preparing school leavers better for work and retention in the local economy with improved Careers Advice
Strategic Outcomes to be achieved: increase in wage level, more people enter into employment, improved productivity, improved access to learning, sustained low unemployment levels (sector change)
Key Projects: 1. Productivity improvements 2. Improved careers IAG (information, advice and guidance) programme
D. Businesses and sectors There is a need to tackle low productivity, low business start-ups and survival rates if our local economy is to be sustainable and have economic growth.
Key Points: • Residents income more than workers suggests wider commuting patterns • Business start-ups have been growing but at a lower rate than in the UK • Public funding cuts reducing ability to support and enable economic growth • Declining sectors displacing workforce – transition to growth sectors • Locally important Sectors: Advanced Engineering (marine and maritime); Advanced Manufacturing; Agricultural Technologies; Care Sector; Construction; Environmental; ITC, Retail and Tourism and Leisure
Page 98 16 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 Strategic Outcomes to be achieved: more people enter into employment, improved productivity, increase in GVA, more and higher spending visitor, sustained low unemployment levels (sector change)
Key Projects: 1. Account Management, including collaboration with DIT 2. Destination Management and the Dorset DMO 3. Advanced Engineering cluster development
E. Assets and Policy With the changing Government policy, which is focused on economic growth, a review of existing Council policy is required to maximise the potential of Strategic Economic Growth Strategy and the local economy. Commercialisation and income generation has to be at the heart of the Strategy and changes in policy should lead by example especially around employment, apprenticeships and learning and land and property assets. Use of local authority assets and/or the use of capital receipts need to be utilised to generate real incentives for investors and developers to enable rapid economic growth, support community development and capacity and increase the sustainability of the local economy.
Key Points: • Procurement - to maximise economic and employment opportunities • Determine reuse and realisation of assets to deliver economic growth • Planning system has a key role to play in enabling economic growth • Not taking a silo approach in decision making and planning/development of major economic developments and regeneration
Strategic Outcomes to be achieved: an increase of apprenticeships, work placements and skills training through improved local authority procurement and processes, new income streams for the local authorities from new developments and regeneration projects/schemes, increased capital receipts that are reinvested in economic growth,
Key Projects: 1. Business rates retention 2. Procurement 3. One public estate 4. Assets to deliver affordable housing
The rationale for intervention at detail level within each of these themes is derived from consideration of: - Evidence of need or opportunity, and priority within the economy - Strategic fit of a chosen intervention with the strategy and other partner strategies - Availability of power and capability between delivery partners to affect the change desired - Likelihood of achieving successful project delivery - Scale of intervention and availability of associated resources required for delivery - Scale of outputs, outcomes and benefits compared to value of resource investment - Likely length of delivery and outputs timetable
As a key enabler, public sector landowners mainly Local Authorities, will have a particular role to play in developing the physical economic infrastructure comprising land, premises, and connectivity.
Page 99 17 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 During the development and delivery of the Economic Growth Strategy these key players will be considering ways to leverage their assets for general economic benefit. This will however be alongside current imperatives to generating income to address their own continuing funding reductions through:
seeking opportunities to generate capital receipts through the sale of assets; to generate revenue income streams; and/or rationalise investments. This has been recognised and will be integral to their role in implementation of the Strategy whilst maintaining functional and effective Council services.
With a coordinated approach to our economic growth, this Growth Strategy is intended to make a significant contribution to the objectives of the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan and will meet the five strategic objectives of Sustainability and Competitiveness, workforce retention and higher skills, accessible and affordable homes, high class environment and quality of life and growth across Dorset; for the needs of our businesses and communities.
The 2017 to 2022 Economic Growth Action Plan is shown at Appendix A.
6. GOVERNANCE
Delivery of Our growth strategy will be achieved through strong focussed partnership working, by the Western Dorset Economic Growth Partnership (which forms the key strategic lead for delivery of this strategy), with Dorset LEP, Dorset Growth Hub, DTA, DIT, HE and FE providers, BIDs, local chambers and coastal community teams (and any successor organisations) and the private and third sectors. Each partner will have a clear and complementary role to play in delivering the Western Dorset Economic Growth Strategy ambition alongside its own aims.
It will not be constrained by boundaries; as well as working with the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership, we will seek to create stronger economic partnerships with other Local Enterprise Partnerships, HE and FE bodies, and neighbouring local authorities, especially those immediately adjacent to Dorset that contribute to and support the local economies of our own communities such as Lyme Regis, Sherborne and Gillingham.
Our local economy is urban, coastal and rural. Our challenge is to deliver real growth that helps our principle growth zones to flourish whilst delivering sustainable growth for our growth towns and coastal economies. Therefore,
Delivery will require resourcing at a number of stages and levels including: - Partnership building and maintenance - Strategy overview, impact monitoring, and steering - Programme building and project identification - Project design, planning and implementation - Project delivery and output monitoring
It will be achieved by: Targeted project teams drawn from across relevant partners and stakeholders in the public, private and third sector. Local authorities teams drawn from many of the Service Units within Dorset County Council and the Dorset Councils Partnership Partner organisations delivering their own projects Page 100 18 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 Maximising external resources to achieve local ambitions Partner organisations delivering accessible services across Western Dorset
Page 101 19 DRAFT VERSION Version 1A 120916 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14
Management Committee 13 December 2016 Options for council support for arts activities and events in Weymouth & Portland
For Decision
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Jason Osborne – Tourism, Culture & Harbour
Senior Leadership Team Contact: M Hamilton,Strategic Director
Report Author: T. Hurley, Leisure Commissioning Manager
Statutory Authority Localism Act 2011 – ‘general power of competence’.
Purpose of Report
1. To present to the committee options for future arts activities and events in the borough and to enable members to allocate appropriate resources.
Officer Recommendations
2. That Management Committee indicates its preference for taking forward any of the following arts projects as detailed in this report:
a) Option 1 – supporting local community projects
b) Option 2 – street performances pilot project
c) Option 3 – a full programme of street performances
d) Option 4 – projections on to buildings event.
e) Option 5 – designing a programme of public art
f) Option 6 – developing an arts strategy for the council
3. That Management Committee instructs officers to develop fully costed proposals for the options that it prioritises for action (as a result of recommendation 2) and that these fully costed proposals, along with suggestions for match funding, be presented to the Committee for Page 103 consideration at the earliest opportunity to enable the appropriate allocation of resources from reserves.
Reason for Decision
4. To guide officers in the development of fully costed proposals for arts activities and events for implementation in 2017 and 2018.
Background and Reason Decision Needed a) Background
5. At its meeting in August 2016, Management Committee considered the future role of the council in arts development and, to guide future decisions, agreed a set of key principles and key themes.
6. Key principles. Management Committee has agreed the following key principles to guide the council’s involvement in arts:
Partnership: the majority of funding required must come from external sources;
Economic development: activities and events should support economic development and help attract higher-spending visitors.
7. It was also agreed to pursue two key themes:
Theme One: Cultural Tourism – the use of high quality, contemporary arts activities attract more, higher-spending visitors to the borough.
Theme Two: Public Realm – the enhancement of the built environment with public art and good design (e.g. lighting, street furniture and materials).
8. As a first step, it was agreed to support the major arts events planned by B-side and Activate in 2017, through some match funding (from the council’s arts development budget in consultation with the briefholder) and thereby help to secure significant Arts Council investment in the borough. These events should be treated as a way of testing the impact of such events on visitor numbers and their economic impact, and also to inform the council’s approach to the arts in future. The planned projects and events are:
Activate: An event as part of the national ‘Coasters Touring Programme’ that is 50% funded by Arts Council and which supports the development of high quality outdoor arts in coastal locations to develop cultural tourism. Activate is keen on developing a new way of working and to try new models of investment, working with local event providers such as for example the Dorset Seafood Festival, and the Weymouth BID. This is likely to be a combination of a circus event and small-scale street art in one identified area with complementary Page 104 concessions – however, the details have yet to be fully agreed with partners.
B-side: A major ‘signature’ event that will contribute a significant cultural element to an existing event (such as Dorset Seafood Festival or Waterfest) funded by the Creative Local Growth Fund (Arts Council and LEP). An extended evaluation and study to compliment this event, including economic impact, links to cultural tourism and potential links to accommodation, food and leisure providers.
9. It should also be noted that the Dorset Library Service has recently received an Arts Council England grant to develop and deliver a future plan for enhancing arts and cultural activity in the borough, which will place the Weymouth Library at the centre of this delivery. This plan will be developed through public consultation between January and April 2017 and is likely to lead to further resources being invested in the borough.
10. Developing an ambitious arts programme. Management Committee also agreed to consider the allocation of more significant resources to the development of an ambitious programme of arts activities in the borough and instructs officers to come forward with costed proposals before the end of 2016. This report sets out, therefore, options for an ambitious programme for members to consider and to agree in principal. Any options that members may wish to pursue can be developed more fully with detailed costings and then presented to Management Committee in 2017 for final approval.
11. Current budget. The council currently has an available arts budget of approximately £10,000. This comprises a carry forward from 2015-16, a special allocation of £6,000 for 2016-17 and the recurring arts budget of £2,550. A significant proportion of the budget will be used to support the events planned by B-side and Activate as described in paragraph 7. Any major expenditure beyond this budget would require members to allocate resources from the council’s reserves. b) Options for future activities
12. The options for an ambitious programme of arts activities, as set out below, have been developed by Activate Performing Arts, b-side CIC and the Arts Development Company in consultation with officers and following a members’ workshop on October 18th 2016.
13. Although the options are been presented as a ‘menu’ they could form a cohesive and inter-related programme which will provide maximum impact and ensure longer term success and sustainability. However, as they are presented, the options range from modest support for community arts projects through to programmes of street performances and then the designing of public art for future implementation.
Option One – Supporting local community projects: Modest one- off grants to the following local projects would allow these projects to secure additional external funding (principally Arts Council England) Page 105 to enhance their projects. Examples of local projects which the council could assist include:
ArtWey ‘Open For Art’ event (June 2017) to allow the organisation to expand their programme by working with the local business community, including a number of “pop-up” exhibitions using local empty shops, and to help fund a marketing campaign sufficient to bring in spending visitors from the wider Dorset area into the borough.
Indicative Cost (council grant): £2,000 - £5000
Friends of Rodwell Trail: Proposal for a mural or public art project for the underneath of the tunnel section.
Indicative Cost (council grant): £2500
Mobile ‘Three Works’ Chris Shaw’s proposal to produce a mobile version of his ‘Three Works’ Gallery on Hope St, so that contemporary art could be brought into existing festivals, events and markets in Weymouth, such as Dorset Seafood festival, Victorian Night, Waterfest, etc.
Indicative cost (council grant): £2500
Option Two - Street Performances: A pilot project in partnership with the Weymouth BID to enhance the town centre with quality street performances which will increase appeal and pull in additional customers for businesses and events in the town. This should be monitored and evaluated to explore the potential to develop a fuller programme as detailed in the option below. Ideally this programme should be tied to an existing street market but a suitable market cannot be identified at the time of writing. The programme could commence as a standalone or, in the future, enhance new markets.
Indicative Cost: 1 event at £6000 £6,000 Administration and delivery £3,000 Evaluation £1500
TOTAL COST £10,500
Option Three - A full programme of street performances (animating the streets). Following the pilot work proposed in Option 2 a more extension programme of street performances would be commissioned. This might include working with market events (farmer’s and produce markets, existing festivals such as the seafood festival, carnival and other local events) to programme a number of street theatre performers, buskers, temporary works of a “public” art nature. All these would be integrated into the specific events and would be delivered withPage popular 106 appeal in mind to add value and appreciation and to access audiences who would not ordinarily seek such a programme out independently.
Indicative Cost: 5 events Artists Fees and Production £21,100 Marketing and Evaluation £4,500 Project management £9,400
TOTAL COST: £35,000
Option Four – Projections on to buildings. A one-off large-scale event to project large-scale moving video images on to buildings on the seafront to take place in the summer of 2017 or 2018. This sort of event has been used extensively in ‘festival of light’ type events across the country and has proved highly popular. The project would involve working with projection artists over a three month period to enable them to work with local community groups on delivering content for the event. The resulting work would then be projected on to seafront buildings for one night only. This would build on the project which has previously taken place at the Nothe Fort. The feasibility of developing this project into a longer-term annual ‘festival of light’ event which may be supported by local businesses will be explored.
Indicative Cost: Event: £30,000 (Including artists, equipment set up and site management costs) Administration and delivery £10,000 Marketing £6,000 TOTAL COST: £46,000
Option Five – Design a programme of public art. The development of a longer-term public art programme to design options for new works of a permanent street art in the town and along the esplanade. This would involve integrating the plans into any planned improvements to the town. This programme would be developed through extensive community consultation and the involvement of contributing artists at the earliest possible stage of development in order to produce a fully costed programme which can be commissioned if resources can be secured.
Indicative Cost: Feasibility study £10,000 Artist involvement (design) £10,000 Project management £8,000
TOTAL COST £28,000
Page 107 Option Six – the development of an arts strategy for the council. Management Committee’s Action Plan sets out the intention to develop an arts strategy for the council. However, given the implications of potential local government reorganisation, members may wish to consider whether the production of a strategy in 2017 is desirable given that any successor authority to the borough council may want to set its own strategic direction of the arts.
Indicative cost: if members did want to proceed immediately to produce a longer-term arts strategy then this would involve significant officer time and public consultation – the likely budget may be £10,000-£20,000. c) Next steps
14. Allocation of resources. Members are invited, therefore, to give consideration to the above options and give ‘in principle’ support to enable officers to work with local arts agencies to fully develop the projects for subsequent approval and the allocation of resources from reserves. Although Option One might be partially implemented with the council’s existing arts budget, the other options will require the allocation of resources from council reserves.
15. Match funding. The above options each have an indicative total cost for implementation. Although officers would seek to secure external funding to contribute to the total cost, in order to guarantee implementation from 2017 onwards, members will need to consider the allocation of resources to meet all of the total cost. Officers will seek to secure external funding, primarily from the Arts Council, however it may not possible in time for the start of projects in 2017. Any applications for a funding from the Arts Council may be better focused on projects taking place in 2018.
16. If implemented, the above options will need the support of the council in terms of both staff time and access to property (i.e. outdoor areas). Such support is particularly valuable as this can be used as an in-kind contribution to help secure external funding.
17. Members should note that, in accordance with the Management Committee Action Plan, a report with proposals for the development of a business case for illuminations on the Esplanade. Although the Dorset Coastal Forum is hoping to secure a large grant to help with improvements to lighting on the Esplanade, it is not unlikely that the council will need to allocate significant resources to the project to enable it to commission design work, undertake any specialist studies required by the local planning authority, and as a capital contribution towards implementation. The allocation of significant funding for arts activities in the borough should, therefore, be taken in the context of this likely future demand on council resources.
Page 108 Implications
18. Corporate Plan. Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities. The need to develop an arts strategy is also identified in the Management Committee’s Action Plan.
19. Financial. Decisions on the future level of support for arts development in will need to be considered in the context of council’s need to make significant reductions across all services. If members decide to pursue the above options then it will need to allocate resources from reserves.
20. In 2016-17 the council has an arts development budget of approximately £10,000 and this can be deployed to implement the proposals in this report – although in all cases match funding will be required. This funding will be used to provide match funding for outdoor arts events planned by B-side and Activate in 2017 (see paragraph 8).
21. Equalities. Consideration will need to be given to ensuring that any supported arts projects are accessible to all sections of the community.
22. Economic Development. Arts events and installations can make a significant contribution to economic growth.
23. Risk Management (including Health & Safety). The primary risk is the council’s ability to make a commitment of future financial support for arts development in the borough given that this is a discretionary service and the council’s need to reduce its annual revenue expenditure.
Consultation and Engagement
24. To inform the development of the options set out in this report, a member workshop was held on 18th October and facilitated by staff from B-Side, Activate and the Arts Development Company. Eleven members attended this workshop in addition to a representative from Weymouth BID.
Appendices
25. None.
Background Papers
26. None.
Footnote
27. 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 Authors: Tony Hurley (Leisure Commissioning Manager). Telephone: 01305 252317 Email: [email protected] Page 109 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15
Management Committee 13 December 2016 West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review: Consultation on Issues and Options For Recommendation To Council
Brief Holder Cllr R Nowak, Environment and Sustainability
Senior Leadership Team Contact: S Hill, Strategic Director
Report Author: T Warrick, Spatial Policy and Implementation Manager
Statutory Authority
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 provide the statutory basis for the preparation and review of local plans.
The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 provide the statutory basis for undertaking the sustainability appraisal of plans.
Purpose of Report
1 To take forward the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review: Issues and Options document for approval by the Council, for the purposes of public consultation.
Officer Recommendations
2 That Management Committee recommends to Council that the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review: Issues and Options document, as set out in Appendix 1 (and amended to reflect the comments of West Dorset’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Weymouth & Portland’s Policy Development Committee, as set out in Appendix 2) be agreed for the purposes of public consultation.
Reason for Decision
3 To enable the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review: Issues and Options document to be approved for the purposes of public consultation, in order to make progress on the review of the Local Plan.
Page 111 Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 The inspector for the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan produced his report on 14 August 2015. The report concluded “that the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Joint Local Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the District and Borough Councils providing a number of modifications are made to the Plan.”
5 In his report, the inspector stated “it is imperative that an early review is undertaken to identify additional land capable of meeting housing needs to the end of the current plan period (2031) as well as the broad location for development in the five year period thereafter” (i.e. to 2036). The council adopted the local plan on 15 October 2015, including a modification in paragraph 1.5.1 to reflect the inspector’s conclusion. It states that “it is likely that a review of the plan will be in place by 2021”.
6 On 1 March 2016, Management Committee agreed to begin the local plan review process, with stakeholder consultation on a sustainability appraisal scoping report. At that meeting Management Committee also approved the 2016 Local Development Scheme (LDS), which included a timetable for the production of the local plan review.
7 Since then officers have been working on the preparation of a document to be the subject of public consultation, which would set out the key issues and main options for the local plan review (see Appendix 1). Sustainability appraisal work has taken place alongside the work on the issues and options consultation document and an accompanying sustainability appraisal report has also been produced (see background documents).
8 The document has been considered by Policy Development Committee and also by West Dorset’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, prior to coming to Management Committee. A number of amendments were suggested at these meetings and they are summarised in Appendix 2. The endorsement of the document (and the amendments suggested through the scrutiny process) is sought from Management Committee so that it can go forward to both councils to be agreed for the purposes of public consultation. An updated version of the consultation document, which reflects the suggested changes in Appendix 2) will be prepared to be agreed at the Full Council meetings in January, ready for the subsequent public consultation starting in February 2017.
Implications
9 The issues and options document discusses the future level of growth needed (both in terms of housing and employment land) to 2036. It mainly focuses on identifying potential site options for meeting the identified need for additional growth, but also seeks views on a number of different policy areas.
10 The current local plan identifies a need for 775 additional new homes to be provided each year over the 20-year plan period from 2011 to 2031. This equates to a total need for 15,500 new homes, although the current local Page 112 plan only makes provision for 14,855 dwellings (i.e. there is a shortfall of 645 units).
11 Extending the plan period to 2036 (as recommended by the local plan inspector) would require provision to be made for a further 3,875 new homes. When the shortfall in provision since 2011 is added to this figure, it gives an overall requirement for the local plan review to make provision for at least 4,520 new homes in addition to those already provided for in the current local plan.
12 Views will be sought on whether the figure of 775 additional new homes per annum remains an appropriate figure for the ‘full objectively assessed need’ for housing in the local plan area. Views will also be sought on whether the level of additional housing provision to 2036 should be at least 4,520 additional new homes.
13 The overall level of housing development sought through the local plan review is consistent with the target of about 20,000 new homes by 2033 in the draft joint economic development strategy for the Dorset Councils Partnership. Taking account of shortfalls in delivery since 2011, it is envisaged that about 14,500 new homes will be delivered in West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland between 2017 and 2033, with a further 5,400 new homes delivered in North Dorset during this period.
14 Policy SUS2 of the current local plan establishes a ‘settlement hierarchy’ and seeks to distribute a greater proportion of development at the larger and more sustainable settlements. The ‘main towns’ of Dorchester and Weymouth are identified as the ‘highest priority locations’ for new development. Elsewhere in the plan area, the focus for future development is the ‘market and coastal towns’ of Beaminster, Bridport, Lyme Regis, Portland, Sherborne and the village of Crossways. In rural areas, the policy seeks to direct development to settlements with defined development boundaries (DDBs), which are generally the larger villages.
15 For each of the ‘main towns’ and ‘market and coastal towns’ and Crossways, the issues and options document identifies ‘broad areas of search’ around the periphery of each settlement. This initial 360 degree search has then been refined, on the basis of sustainability appraisal work, to identify a number of potential options for growth in these different locations. Views are also sought on potential options for the expansion of Yeovil into parts of West Dorset in the issues and options document.
16 The issues and options document sets out the indicative capacity for each of these more refined options and highlights key development issues with taking these sites forward. Views are sought on: what would be appropriate levels of growth for each settlement; issues associated with the development of the identified site options; and the infrastructure that would be required to take the sites forward, either individually or in combination.
17 The issues and options document makes it clear that there is no commitment by the councils to the development of any of these sites at Page 113 this stage: the purpose of the consultation being to begin a dialogue with local communities on how best to meet future development needs. The responses to the consultation will then be fed into the next stage of preparation of the review, which will be to identify ‘preferred options’ for meeting the need for growth.
18 The current local plan was prepared with extensive engagement with members, key stakeholders and the public. It has also been found sound by a planning inspector and adopted by both councils very recently (in October 2015). On that basis, it is only intended to review the policies in the local plan where issues have arisen.
19 With additional housing growth being proposed in the review, it will be important to look again at the need for employment land, shops and other town centre uses to provide jobs and the need for infrastructure to support housing and economic development. The issues and options document seeks views on these matters.
20 The housing policies in the current local plan will need to be reviewed to reflect recent (and anticipated future) changes to Government policy. The Government is seeking to diversify the housing market by encouraging custom and self-build housing and the issues and options document seeks views on how best to do that. Whilst there remains a lack of clarity on what local authorities will need to do to promote starter homes, views are sought on what the focus should be for other forms of affordable housing provision which may also be sought (i.e. rental or shared equity) alongside starter homes.
21 The local plan inspector indicated that the councils should look again at their approach to green infrastructure and coastal change management and there is a commitment to do so in the adopted local plan. These are matters on which views are sought in the issues and options document. Views are also sought on the issues of design and wind energy.
22 Following consideration by Management Committee the issues and options document will go forward to be agreed for consultation by Full Council in January 2017. Once agreed the issues and options document will be subject to an eight week public consultation period starting in February 2017.
23 Consultation will include: Publishing the issues and options document; Providing more detail in accompanying sustainability appraisal and background papers; Writing to all people on the consultation database; Public exhibitions in the towns (and the village of Crossways), where site-based options for growth have been identified; Ongoing engagement with key stakeholders, including town and parish councils; and Making all material available on the website.
24 The responses to the consultation will feed into the next stage (preferred options), which will be subject to a further round of public consultation later Page 114 in 2017. The local plan review document would then be prepared (and subject to a further round of public consultation) before being submitted to the Secretary of State for examination.
25 The rounds of ‘issues and options’ and ‘preferred options’ consultation will enable a dialogue to take place with the residents and key stakeholders in the local area. Hopefully this approach will: engage the local community in the plan review process; encourage discussion of the key issues and main options; and help to ensure that the most appropriate overall strategy is developed for the local area, prior to the local plan review being submitted for examination.
Corporate Plan
26 The review of the local plan will contribute to achieving the corporate aims relating to economy and quality of life, including: helping to stimulate economic growth so that the borough offers better jobs and prospects for local people; increasing the number of new homes built within the borough; enhancing the quality of life of people living in the borough; and safeguarding and providing opportunities to enjoy the natural and built environment now and in the future.
Financial
27 The preparation of the local plan review will be undertaken from within existing budgets. Additional sums have been included in the budget for 2016/17 primarily to fund updates to the evidence base and to facilitate community engagement on key issues such as the consideration of options for growth.
Equalities
28 When draft policies are produced for the local plan review, they will be subject to an equalities impact assessment.
Environmental
29 The issues and options document for the local plan review has been subject to sustainability appraisal, which has considered the economic, social and environmental implications of the issues and options identified. The sustainability appraisal document is listed as a background document. Work on the sustainability appraisal will be updated in tandem with work on the subsequent stages of preparing the local plan review.
30 The local plan review will also require a habitats regulations assessment, which will consider the potential impact of proposals on internationally important wildlife sites.
31 Evidence to support development site options and new or revised policies will be updated to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account. For example, new / updated studies will be produced to assess Page 115 the impact of proposed development on the landscape and the historic environment.
Economic Development
32 Part of the economic vision for the area set out in the current local plan is to facilitate inward investment to create better jobs. It is proposed that this vision will be carried forward into the local plan review, which is also consistent with the joint economic development strategy being prepared for the Dorset Councils Partnership. The need for employment land will also be reassessed as part of the review and further employment land will be identified if required. This is likely to lead to a growth in local employment and the number of businesses in the area.
Risk Management (including Health & Safety)
33 The local plan inspector recommended an ‘early review’ of the current local plan, in view of the overall shortfall in housing provision to 2031. It is important that the councils continue to take forward the review in a timely manner to ensure that it is in place by 2021, as suggested by the inspector.
34 By taking forward the local plan review in a timely manner, developers will be encouraged to work with the councils through the plan-making process, reducing the risk of speculative planning applications being submitted on larger sites. This approach will also ensure that a long term supply of housing sites is secured and that there is sufficient time to engage with local communities in reviewing policies and considering alternative options, whist still managing to have the review in place by the 2021 deadline set by the inspector.
Human Resources
35 Work on the local plan review and the sustainability appraisal will be undertaken primarily by the spatial policy and implementation team. Advice will also be taken from economic regeneration, legal and other officers as work on the review progresses. Consultants may also be employed to produce updated evidence base studies. They will be funded from within existing budgets.
Consultation and Engagement
36 The local plan review will be subject to public consultation at a number of different stages. All consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and the Councils’ Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).
Appendices
Appendix 1 – West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review: Initial Issues and Options Consultation document
Page 116 Appendix 2 - Issues Raised by West Dorset’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Weymouth and Portland’s Policy Development Committee
Background Papers
Report on the examination into the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Joint Local Plan – The Planning Inspectorate (August 2015) – https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/421782/West-Dorset-Weymouth-- Portland-Adopted-Local-Plan-Inspectors-Report
West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 –West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (October 2015) – https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/421631/West-Dorset-Weymouth-- Portland-Adopted-Local-Plan
Programme for the Local Plan Review and Related Policy Documents: The Local Development Scheme for West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland - West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (March 2016) - https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/423273/Local-Development-Scheme
West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review: Sustainability Appraisal of the Issues and Options Document – West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (to be published February 2017) - linked from the relevant agenda item on this page - http://moderngovdcp.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=135
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: Trevor Warrick – Spatial Policy and Implementation Manager Telephone: 01305 252302 Email: [email protected]
Page 117 This page is intentionally left blank
Joint Local Plan Review for West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland
INITIAL ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION
FEBRUARY 2017
Page 119 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Foreword
We are delighted to introduce the review of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland joint Local Plan. Although it is only a short time ago since the examination and adoption of the joint Local Plan, the inspector who examined the plan said that the councils should prepare an early review. This review needs to identify additional land capable of meeting housing needs to the end of the current plan period (2031) as well as the broad locations for development in the five year period thereafter (to 2036). The inspector pointed towards Dorchester and Sherborne as locations for future growth, but we have also considered a range of options in our coastal and market towns. Government planning policy has changed on a number of issues including the introduction of ‘starter homes’ and ‘self build and custom housebuilding’ aimed to fulfil the Government’s priority to build more homes. We are therefore addressing these issues too. This first consultation document presents the issues relevant to the plan area today and seeks your thoughts on the different options that we can take. It is important to remember that these are ‘options’ which will be refined at a later stage - there is no commitment to any one solution at this point. The review of the adopted local plan is just starting and we are keen to seek as many different views as possible before we go any further. Your views are really important to us and the feedback we receive will guide decisions as the plan progresses towards examination and adoption.
Councillor Ian Gardner Executive Portfolio Holder for Planning, West Dorset District Council
Councillor Ray Nowak Briefholder for Environment and Sustainability, Weymouth & Portland Borough Council
HOW TO GET INVOLVED
Terms explained in glossary at the end of this document
Dates of consultation Dates and venues where drop-in events are held Email address: [email protected] Telephone: 01305 252386
South Walks House, South Walks Road, Dorchester, Dorset DT1 1UZ
Page | 1 Page 120 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Foreword ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Context ...... 7 3. A Vision for the Area ...... 10 4. Level of Growth – Housing ...... 13 5. Distribution of Development ...... 16 6. Development at Dorchester ...... 25 7. Development at Sherborne ...... 34 8. Development at Weymouth ( and Chickerell) ...... 42 9. Development at Beaminster ...... 50 10. Development at Bridport ...... 57 11. Development at Crossways ...... 66 12. Development at Lyme Regis ...... 74 13. Development on Portland ...... 81 14. Development at Yeovil ...... 89 15. Affordable Housing ...... 95 16. Self Build Housing ...... 100 17. Level of Growth – Employment land ...... 103 18. Protection of Employment Sites ...... 106 19. Retail and Town Centres ...... 110 20. Green Infrastructure ...... 113 21. Design ...... 117 22. Coastal Change ...... 121 23. Wind Energy ...... 124 24. Glossary...... 126
Page | 2 Page 121 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
1. Introduction
CURRENT ADOPTED LOCAL PLAN
1.1 The current local plan was adopted by West Dorset District Council on 22nd October 2015 and by Weymouth & Portland Borough Council on 15th October 2015. The local plan is the basis upon which planning applications are considered. 1.2 The current plan covers the period 2011-2031. It contains policies against which all planning applications can be assessed and site specific allocations of land for development to meet future housing and employment needs across both West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland. It establishes that 775 new homes per annum and a total of 60ha of employment land are to be delivered in the period up to 2031. 1.3 Preparation of the adopted local plan began in 2011, following an agreement between the two councils to prepare a joint plan. The plan was submitted for independent examination in 2013 with the examination hearings held in November and December 2014. The inspector’s report was received on 14 August 2015 and the plan was subsequently adopted by both councils.
INSPECTOR’S REPORT KEY POINTS
1.4 The inspector recommended a number of modifications necessary to enable the plan to be adopted. These are summarised as:
Acknowledgement of the need for an early review of the Local Plan by 2021 to ensure provision of sufficient housing land for the remainder of the plan period; Changes to the level of housing provision and revision of the five year housing land supply position; As part of the review process identify a long-term strategy for development in the Dorchester area and reappraise housing provision in Sherborne; Remove reference to a trunk road service area as part of park and ride proposals at Dorchester.
DUTY TO COOPERATE
1.5 The ‘duty to cooperate’ requires local planning authorities to engage ‘constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis’ with one another in the preparation of plans, and have regard to each other’s relevant activities. 1.6 Weymouth & Portland Borough shares its boundary with West Dorset District with the duty to co-operate being addressed principally by the preparation of the joint local plan. West Dorset District also shares boundaries with East Devon, North Dorset, Purbeck, and South Somerset local authority areas. 1.7 The inspector highlighted “three areas where administrative boundaries influenced development options”. Through the review, the councils will work together across
Page | 3 Page 122 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
administrative boundaries to plan for the housing, transport and infrastructure that local people need in the areas of:
Lyme Regis/Uplyme working with East Devon District Council Crossways/Moreton working with Purbeck District Council Edge of Yeovil/Sherborne working with South Somerset District Council
THE NEED FOR REVIEW
1.8 The main recommended modification was that the councils undertook an early review of the plan because the inspector considered that “there is insufficient land to meet housing needs to the end of the plan period”. The inspector said “I therefore recommend a review should be in place no later than 2021, if not earlier, to avoid development having to be allowed in locations which are not favoured or are in less sustainable locations”. 1.9 The inspector explained that the purpose of the review was “to identify additional land capable of meeting housing needs to the end of the current plan period” (i.e. to 2031) “as well as the broad location for development in the five year period thereafter” (i.e. to 2036). 1.10 The inspector also commented that “the Local Plan fails to give sufficient emphasis to the sustainable role of particular settlements and the contribution they could make to meeting development needs” and that “a modification is required to ensure the councils identify further development options at specific settlements as part of an early review”. The inspector suggested that the councils should “identify a long-term strategy for development in the Dorchester area and reappraise housing provision in Sherborne”.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DIDN’T PROVIDE A REVIEW BY 2021?
1.11 In England and Wales, the local plan sets out in broad terms what type of development is acceptable and where. Planning decisions are then made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations suggest a different approach is necessary. If the councils do not review the local plan it becomes out of date and the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ in national planning policy would apply. As a result, the councils would have less control in determining where development goes. This situation also occurs when the councils are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of land for housing. 1.12 Failure to undertake a review or even start it promptly would be likely to increase the risk of developers submitting planning applications that are not in accordance with the adopted local plan. 1.13 It is hoped that by starting the local plan review promptly and committing to a timeframe for its completion well before 2021, developers will work with the councils through the plan-making process to address these issues. A prompt start on the review also maximises the time available to engage with local communities in reviewing policies and considering alternative options.
Page | 4 Page 123 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
WHAT THIS DOCUMENT COVERS
1.14 This document sets out the key issues affecting West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland both now and in the future, and discusses a range of options to tackle these issues. The issues and options consultation gives local people, businesses and other organisations the opportunity to have their say on potential future growth. 1.15 The main issues covered by this document are:
To introduce a single vision for the whole plan area, (combining the two separate visions for each local authority from the adopted Local Plan). To revisit the level of economic and housing growth needed across the area. To revisit the approach to the distribution of development. To consider growth opportunities at the main towns of Dorchester & Weymouth (including outlying parts) and the market and coastal towns of Beaminster, Bridport, Lyme Regis, Portland, Sherborne and the village of Crossways. To consider opportunities for growth in West Dorset adjacent to Yeovil. To reconsider the approach to protecting employment sites. To establish a hierarchy of town and local centres. To respond to recent Government changes to national policy in relation to affordable housing. To develop an approach to a green infrastructure network to replace existing local landscape designations. To identify Coastal Change Management Areas. To establish if technical standards on accessibility and adaptable housing, wheelchair accessible housing, space standards and water efficiency can be justified by evidence. To consider the councils’ approach to wind energy development. To explore ways to deliver sufficient plots for self-build and custom housebuilding in the area.
PROCESS / CONSULTATION GOING FORWARD
1.16 In order to have the local plan review in place by 2021, it will need to have been prepared, consulted upon, subject to an examination and adopted by both councils. 1.17 The timetable for the production of planning policy documents is set out in the councils’ Local Development Scheme (LDS). The LDS indicates that the councils intend to submit the reviewed local plan for examination in September 2018 with a view to adopting the plan in the following year. 1.18 There is however considerable flexibility in how local planning authorities carry out the initial stages of the review. After consultation on this Issues and Options document, the councils intend to gather the necessary evidence to enable the options to be refined to give a set of preferred options. These preferred options would then be subject to consultation. There is also scope for some more focused consultation on key issues (such as growth at Dorchester) should it be considered necessary. Page | 5 Page 124 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
1.19 Prior to submission for examination, the councils must publish the final version of the reviewed local plan to enable representations to be made that can then be considered at examination.
SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
1.20 The first stage in the production of a local plan is the preparation of a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Scoping Report. This document identifies the key environmental, social and economic issues for the local plan review and establishes SA objectives for testing the local plan proposals with the aim of ensuring that these policies contribute towards achieving sustainable development. 1.21 The Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report was prepared and consulted on in March 2016. The report was then amended taking on board the results of the consultation and published in its final form in July 2016.
Page | 6 Page 125 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
2. Context
2.31 The plan area covers the entire administrative areas of West Dorset District and Weymouth and Portland Borough, covering an area of around 112,000 hectares. The area stretches along the coast from Lyme Regis in the west to Crossways in the east and from the tip of Portland to the village of Sandford Orcas just north of Sherborne. Within the plan area is the county town of Dorchester, and the costal towns of Weymouth and Bridport. 2.32 There are wider linkages to settlements outside the plan area including Yeovil in the north and the Bournemouth/Poole conurbation in the east.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) designation recognises landscapes of particularly high quality and covers approximately 69% of West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland. The West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland area is home to a diverse range of wildlife habitats and species, with approximately 10,930 hectares (9.7%) of the area designated at a regional (5.5%), national (3.9%), and/or international level (2.8%). The West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland area has a rich historic heritage, including around 8,000 listed buildings, 90 Conservation Areas and many nationally important Scheduled Monuments. The highest quality agricultural land (grade I and II) represent 21% of West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland, with the highest grade land situated to the north of Bridport and to the west of Sherborne.
SOCIAL ISSUES
West Dorset’s population is 100,7501. The district has experienced a population increase of 5.9% between 2003 and 2013, which is less than the Dorset average (8.3%) but greater than that for England and Wales as a whole (1.3%). Weymouth and Portland’s population is 65,170. The borough experienced a slower population growth rate of just 1.3% over this period, significantly below the population increase experienced in Dorset but on a par with the England & Wales average. In July 2016, the average house price in West Dorset was £264,002 while in Weymouth & Portland, the average house price was £212,167. The affordability of housing for first time buyers is a key issue with the ratio of lower quartile house prices to earnings in 2012 for West Dorset being 10.36 and 7.61 for Weymouth & Portland. The councils’ housing registers currently have approximately 1,310 people registered in West Dorset and 1,350 people registered in Weymouth & Portland (September 2016).
1 2014 mid-year population estimates
Page | 7 Page 126 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland have a greater proportion of residents within the older population brackets than the England and Wales average. Future projections indicate that there will be a significant increase in the proportion of residents in the over 65 age group. Figure 2.1: Population profile comparison
Weymouth West Dorset & Portland
England and Wales
The average household size in 2011 was 2.2 persons per household in West Dorset and 2.3 persons per household in Weymouth & Portland. The Dorset average was 2.3 and national average was 2.4.
ECONOMIC ISSUES
The output of businesses in West Dorset, as measured through gross value added or GVA, has risen since 2010 and is now above the South West average but remains below the national average. The GVA in Weymouth and Portland has fluctuated in recent years, and remains significantly below the South West and national averages.
Page | 8 Page 127 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Both West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland have experienced a decline in employment over the last five years. Sectors which have experienced high employment decline include the public sector, transport and logistics, and wholesale and retail. Across Dorset as a whole, including West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland, the ageing population means that a high proportion of the labour force is nearing retirement age and there is likely to be a significant shortfall in labour supply by 2024 unless there is more in-migration of working age people. The majority of businesses in West Dorset (69%), Weymouth & Portland (68%) and across the South West of England (68%) are small, employing between 0-4 people. The proportion of new businesses opening in West Dorset (8.3%) is below that of Weymouth & Portland (12.4%), South West England (10.6%), and England and Wales (13.7%). West Dorset has a higher proportion of businesses within the agricultural sector than the national average, reflecting the rural nature of the district. Weymouth & Portland has a higher proportion of businesses within the accommodation and food and arts, entertainment and recreational sectors reflecting the dominance of the tourism sector. Unemployment in West Dorset has decreased during the past 5 years from 1.7% in 2009 to 0.7% in 2015, and remains below the South West average of 1.3% and the national average of 2.3%. Unemployment in Weymouth and Portland has decreased during the past 5 years from 3.3% in 2009 to 1.6% in 2015. This is above the South West average but below the national average.
Page | 9 Page 128 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
3. A Vision for the Area
INTRODUCTION
3.1 A vision is an important part of a local plan that guides the approach to development within an area. It is about identifying the future of a place, responding to local needs and circumstances, and is translated into a framework to guide future development. 3.2 A vision should be aspirational but realistic, setting out in broad terms what is intended to happen in different parts of the area over the longer term. The vision should be translated into objectives for the area which explain how the key elements of the vision will be dealt with. The vision and objectives should be locally specific and based on an understanding of the characteristics and function of the area.
CURRENT VISION
3.3 The adopted local plan for West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland has separate visions for each of the council areas. These visions are specific to each geographical area and were produced independently reflecting the characteristics and priorities of each local authority. The visions were drawn up early on in the preparation of the adopted local plan.
A VISION FOR WEST DORSET
The spectacular landscapes of West Dorset, from the panoramic chalk ridges to the wooded valleys and undeveloped coastline, the picturesque settlements and variety of natural habitats, are something that set it apart from the rest of the country. We are proud of this, and want to be able to say the same in 20 years’ time. West Dorset has many communities of different sizes, from the small, rural villages to the larger market towns. It is important to us that we have a thriving economy, decent affordable homes and a network of community facilities, so that local people of all ages and abilities can enjoy living here and playing an active part in their community.
A VISION FOR WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND
We want the next 20 years to be an exciting time for the Borough, with significant investment and regeneration of key sites and infrastructure, making this a place where people of all ages will be engaged with their local community, feel a real sense of belonging and civic pride. Weymouth and Portland are special places, set within the World Heritage Coast and the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The relationship with the sea is key to our identity, past, present and future, from the beach to the port and harbours, the sailing opportunities, and all the related maritime industries. We want to keep the individual identities of the communities that make up our area, linking to our maritime heritage and the beautiful coastal and rural landscapes, but always looking to the future.
Page | 10 Page 129 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
REASONS FOR CHANGE
3.4 The adopted local plan covers the two areas of West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council. These two areas make up the entirety of the Western Dorset Housing Market Area, which is considered to be the most appropriate area on which to draw up a local plan; a view that was supported by the local plan inspector. 3.5 Since the local plan was adopted, the two councils have been working with Dorset County Council and North Dorset District Council on a joint approach to economic development across the western part of Dorset, referred to as the ‘Western Dorset Growth Area’. This joint approach is promoting growth and investment in the whole of the plan area, particularly in the Weymouth, Dorchester and Portland area. In addition, growth at other market and coastal towns will play an important role in sustaining the local economy. 3.6 The development of a single vision for the plan area, rather than two separate visions as at present, would reflect this joint approach to future economic growth. The single vision will aid the development of revised local plan objectives to guide policy development.
REVISED VISION
3.7 The key elements of the two separate visions have been drawn together to provide a single vision for the whole plan area. The combined vision highlights the important characteristics of the area and the aspirations for how growth will be accommodated. 3.8 The proposed vision builds in the growth potential within the Weymouth, Dorchester and Portland area and reflects the potential at other market and coastal towns.
Page | 11 Page 130 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
PROPOSED VISION
The environmental quality of the area – its landscape, coastline and its picturesque settlements – is what makes the area special and an attractive place to live and do business. The settlements in the area each have their own character – from small rural villages in West Dorset to the larger market towns with links to their past and coastal communities such as Weymouth with extensive maritime and tourist heritage. Looking forward, the rich natural environment, heritage and links to the past need to be considered and respected, and where possible enhanced. Within this context, in 20 years time, we want to be proud of the area in which we live. We want more and better paid jobs, more affordable homes and a network of community facilities that enable all ages and abilities to contribute to their community enabling a real sense of community belonging and engagement. We wish to see significant investment and regeneration providing infrastructure to encourage businesses across the area to start and grow. It is important that we have a thriving and resilient economy, capitalising on the linkages between Weymouth, Dorchester and Portland as the key driver of the local economy and capitalising on the opportunities at the market and coastal towns to provide for sustainable growth to serve the more rural areas.
3-i. Do you agree with the proposed single vision being used to develop objectives and guide the strategy for development within the Local Plan area?
Page | 12 Page 131 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
4. Level of Growth – Housing
INTRODUCTION
4.1 Establishing the level of growth required to meet future needs, especially for housing and employment land, is an important part of the planning process. It ensures that social and economic needs are met, contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. (The level of employment land required to meet needs is dealt with in section 15 of this document).
CURRENT APPROACH
4.2 National planning policy requires a council to assess its housing needs and ensure that its local plan meets the full Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing in the relevant Housing Market Area (HMA). West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland is considered to be a single HMA, making the whole plan area the appropriate area to plan for housing growth. 4.3 National planning policy also indicates that there should be sufficient land of the right type available in the right places and at the right time to support economic growth and innovation. POLICY SUS1 – LEVEL OF ECONOMIC AND HOUSING GROWTH
4.4 Policy SUS1 sets out the level of economic and housing growth that should be delivered in West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland in the period from 2011 to 2031. 4.5 It indicates that provision will be made for a deliverable supply of housing land to accommodate in the region of 775 dwellings per annum – a total of 15,500 new homes over the plan period. The delivery of this level of housing growth will support the local economy, helping to generate around 13,000 jobs, and allowing in-migration of working age people to boost the currently reducing workforce.
REASON FOR CHANGE
4.6 There are a number of reasons why the level of economic and housing growth needs to be re-examined in the local plan review. In summary, they are:
New 2014-based population and household projections; The shortfall in the provision of housing land in the local plan for the period to 2031, as identified by the local plan inspector; and The need for an early review of the local plan to make provision for growth for a further 5 years (i.e. to 2036), as identified by the local plan inspector. 4.7 These reasons are discussed in more detail below. THE NEW 2014-BASED POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS
4.8 The starting point for assessing the OAN for housing in the local plan area is the latest household projections. For the adopted local plan, the 2012-based household projections were the starting point. These projections showed an average annual growth in households
Page | 13 Page 132 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
of 494 across the local plan area, which equates to 539 dwellings per annum, taking account of vacant properties and second homes. 4.9 Household projections are based on trends over the previous five years, meaning that the 2012- based projections were strongly influenced by the recession. For the adopted local plan an alternative projection was therefore used, based on the 2001-2007 period which pre-dated the recession. This was used so as to allow for economic growth and the potential for people to move in to the area to work. The ageing population locally means that without more people of working age moving into the area, there would be a significant decline in the labour force. These alternative figures show an average annual growth of 709 households across the plan area, equating to an objectively assessed need of 775 dwellings per annum, taking account of vacant properties and second homes. 4.10 With the release of the 2014-based household projections in July 2016 there is a need to assess the impact on the need for additional dwellings. The projections show a modest increase in the forecast average annual growth in households of 539 across the local plan area which equates to a need for 589 dwellings per annum, taking account of vacant properties and second homes. 4.11 The need for new homes derived from the 2014-based projections, although slightly higher than the need based on the 2012-based projections, is still significantly below the need identified in the current local plan based on the 2001 / 2007 projections, as set out in summary in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1 – The Implications of Different Household Projections for Household Growth and the Need for Additional Dwellings
AVERAGE ANNUAL AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD PROJECTION HOUSEHOLD GROWTH RATE FOR DWELLINGS
2012-based 494 539
2014-based 539 589
2001 / 2007-based 709 775
SHORTFALL IN HOUSING LAND PROVISION TO 2031
4.12 The overall housing requirement between 2011 and 2031 is for 15,500 new homes. However, within the local plan provision is only made for 14,855 new homes. This shortfall in provision (of 645 new homes) is one of the reasons why the inspector considered it necessary to undertake a review of the local plan. THE NEED FOR HOUSING TO 2036
4.13 The inspector considered that the local plan review should identify the broad location of development for the five years beyond the current plan period (i.e. to 2036). The inspector
Page | 14 Page 133 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
indicated that this longer-term provision should be made “in the expectation that current Government guidance will not change”. 4.14 Projecting forward the OAN for housing (i.e. 775 dpa) for another 5 years would require the identification of sufficient land to accommodate another 3,875 new homes across the plan area. When added to the 645 unit shortfall in the period to 2031, this gives an overall requirement to 2036 of at least 4,520 new homes. The local plan review therefore needs to identify sufficient additional housing land to accommodate at least this level of housing growth.
PROPOSED APPROACH
4.15 Key issues relating to proposed levels of housing growth and the proposed approaches to address these issues are discussed below. THE OBJECTIVELY ASSESSED NEED FOR HOUSING
4.16 As described on the previous page, the new 2014-based national household projections are higher than the 2012-based projections which were the starting point for the objectively assessed housing needs in the local plan. However the objectively assessed needs were considerably higher than either the 2012- or 2014- based projections, in order to make greater allowance for future economic growth and the need for in-migration to support the workforce. 4.17 Despite the modest increase in the 2014-based projections, there is still significant headroom in the figure of 775 per annum used in the adopted local plan and it is not therefore considered that it should be changed.
4-i. Do you consider that the figure of 775 dwellings per annum remains an appropriate figure for the objectively assessed need for housing in the local plan area in the light of the 2014-based household projections?
ADDITIONAL HOUSING LAND REQUIRED BETWEEN 2011 AND 2036
4.18 The inspector clearly set out the parameters for the local plan review in his report and the councils are seeking to take forward the review on that basis. Projecting forward the OAN (of 775 dpa) for a further five years (to 2036) and adding this to the shortfall in housing provision to 2031 (of 645 new homes) means that sufficient additional land needs to be identified to accommodate at least a further 4,520 new homes. This would be in addition to the supply already identified in the local plan for 14,855 new homes.
4-ii. Do you agree with the level of additional housing provision proposed for the local plan area to meet needs for a further five years (i.e. at least an additional 4,520 new homes in the local plan area on top of that already identified)?
Page | 15 Page 134 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
5. Distribution of Development
INTRODUCTION
5.1 Influencing the location of future growth can help to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development. Typically this means focusing future growth on larger settlements, which already have a range of jobs and services, but it is also important to provide opportunities for people in more rural areas.
CURRENT APPROACH
5.2 One of the core principles in national policy is that planning should “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”. 5.3 Another of the core principles is that planning should “take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas … recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”. 5.4 National policy also states that in order “to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”. 5.5 The local plan Inspector highlighted that “concentrating development in the larger settlements means there is access to existing services and facilities while new development can be the catalyst for improved provision”. POLICY SUS2 – DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT
5.6 Policy SUS 2 seeks to focus development at the main towns of Dorchester and Weymouth (including Chickerell and parts of Littlemoor). Elsewhere the market and coastal towns of Beaminster, Bridport, Lyme Regis, Portland and Sherborne and the village of Crossways are identified as a focus for future development. 5.7 In rural areas, development is directed to settlements with ‘defined development boundaries’ (DDBs) and which should take place at “an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement”. 5.8 The policy seeks to “strictly control” development outside DDBs to a limited number of uses, but also recognises that some growth may be necessary to meet local needs. The main route for achieving this would be through neighbourhood planning and other planning tools. 5.9 The current approach to the distribution of development needs to be re-examined for the following reasons:
the need to accommodate further growth in the period to 2036; recently granted planning permissions and appeals allowed outside defined development boundaries;
Page | 16 Page 135 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
a lack of clarity about what development ‘at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement’ means for settlements in rural areas; the designation / proposed designation of additional defined development boundaries in neighbourhood plans; and a lack of clarity with regard to how the settlement hierarchy applies to Portland. 5.10 These reasons are discussed in more detail below.
ACCOMMODATING GROWTH WITHIN THE SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY
REASON FOR CHANGE
5.11 The councils need to identify sufficient land to accommodate at least a further 4,520 homes by 2036. This is in addition to the land for 14,855 new homes already identified in the adopted local plan. How this development should be distributed across the settlements in the plan area is an issue that needs to be resolved. 5.12 In the summary of his findings, the local plan Inspector stated that as part of the local plan review the councils should “identify a long-term strategy for development in the Dorchester area and reappraise housing provision in Sherborne”. Since he also recommended that the review of the local plan should seek to meet development needs for a further five years (i.e. until 2036), the councils will need to consider the future development needs of the main towns, market and coastal towns and the village of Crossways (the settlements in the first and second tiers of the settlement hierarchy). 5.13 For settlements in the third tier of the settlement hierarchy (mainly the larger villages), the local plan envisages local needs being met through development within DDBs and through neighbourhood planning. 5.14 The eight settlements in the top two tiers of the settlement hierarchy are likely to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional growth now proposed. Although it’s unlikely that the settlements at the third tier of the hierarchy would need to contribute to meeting strategic development needs, views are sought on the option of proposing some further growth at the larger villages. PROPOSED APPROACH
5.15 Settlements with DDBs and their estimated populations are listed in Figure 5.1. Tier 3 – “Other Settlements with DDBs” has been broken down into three categories by estimated population. 5.16 In the event that the local plan review was to propose growth at settlements at the third tier of the hierarchy, it would be appropriate to examine opportunities for development at the larger villages, with higher populations and at least some day-to-day facilities.
Page | 17 Page 136 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 5.1 Settlements estimated population (2014 mid-year population estimates)
TIER 1 - MAIN TOWNS
Weymouth 52,168
Dorchester 19,481
TIER 2 - COASTAL AND MARKET TOWNS & CROSSWAYS
Bridport (inc. Allington, Bothenhampton and Bradpole) 13,661
Portland 12,966
Sherborne 9,645
Chickerell 5,524
Lyme Regis 3,637
Beaminster 3,097
Crossways 2,363
TIER 3 - OTHER SETTLEMENTS WITH DDB’S (PARISH POPULATION)
Charminster 2,979 Charminster village about 1,500 Charlton Down about 1,500
Puddletown 1,452
Broadwindsor 1,319
Charmouth 1,310
Broadmayne 1,250
Maiden Newton and Higher Frome Vauchurch 1,106
Population over 1,000 over Population Yetminster 1,028
Burton Bradstock 925
Bradford Abbas 880
Thornford 831
Cerne Abbas 819
Portesham 670
Piddletrenthide 655
Mosterton 636
Buckland Newton 609
Population between 600 and 1,000 and 600 between Population Salway Ash (in Netherbury Parish) about 427
Page | 18 Page 137 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Bishop’s Caundle 393
West Knighton 388
Winterborne Abbas 315
Trent 301
Sutton Poyntz(village within the WPBC area) c.300
Winterbourne Steepleton 270
Evershot 211
Population less than 400 than less Population Godmanstone (DDB added in Cerne Valley neighbourhood plan) 147
5-i. Do you agree that the vast majority of the additional growth proposed for the period up to 2036 should be accommodated at Dorchester, Weymouth (including Chickerell and Littlemoor), Beaminster, Bridport, Lyme Regis, Portland, Sherborne and Crossways?
5-ii. If the local plan review is to consider identifying sites for growth at other settlements, should opportunities be considered: at settlements with populations of more than 1,000; or at settlements with populations of more than 600; or at any settlement with a defined development boundary?
DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
REASON FOR CHANGE
5.17 A Defined Development Boundary (DDB) is a ‘planning tool’ which seeks to control the distribution of development. Policy SUS2 indicates that within DDBs residential, employment and other developments will normally be permitted. It then goes on to indicate that development outside DDBs will be ‘strictly controlled’ (although a list of specific types of development that may be permitted outside DDBs is also included). 5.18 There have been a number of recent cases where proposals for market housing development outside DDBs have been permitted. These were contrary to Policy SUS2 however were considered to be sustainable, in terms of national policy and Policy INT1. In such cases, regard has been had to other material considerations most notably the councils’ marginal five-year housing land supply and typically the lack of demonstrable harm associated with the scheme. This raises the issue of whether Policy SUS2 and / or the supporting text should be amended to clarify that these other matters will be taken into account when the policy is applied.
Page | 19 Page 138 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
PROPOSED APPROACH
5.19 It is suggested that the supporting text to Policy SUS2 could be amended to clarify the other matters that should be taken into account when the policy is applied to market housing developments, most notably:
national policy; Policy INT 1 in the local plan; and the councils’ housing land supply position. 5.20 Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that “housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development”. The NPPF indicates that sustainable development includes economic, social and environmental dimensions and paragraph 8 states that in order “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system”. The ‘presumption’ in national policy is reflected in Policy INT 1 of the local plan, which indicates that “there will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area”. 5.21 Where proposals for market housing development are located outside DDBs, they are contrary to Policy SUS2. However, if on balance they are considered to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area, they may be considered to comply with Policy INT1 and to reflect ‘the presumption’ in national policy. 5.22 National policy regards the provision of housing as a part of the ‘social role’ of the planning system and in determining the weight to give to that in decision-making, the supply of housing land, both to meet housing needs over the plan period and in the next five years, is an important consideration. 5.23 The inspector concluded that the local plan did not make adequate provision for housing for the whole plan period, which was one of the main reasons he recommended an early review. Whilst he concluded that there was an adequate supply to meet housing needs over the next five years, he considered this supply to be marginal, which is why he recommended that the councils “should take advantage of every reasonable opportunity to improve their short term supply position as well as the overall amount of housing for the plan period”. 5.24 The housing land supply position often means that considerable weight is given to the provision of housing, when planning applications for market housing development are determined on sites outside DDBs.
5-iii. Should Policy SUS2 continue to strictly control development outside defined development boundaries, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints?
Page | 20 Page 139 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
5-iv. Should the supporting text to Policy SUS2 be amended to clarify the other matters that need to be taken into account when applying the policy to market housing developments outside DDBs, most notably: national planning policy; Policy INT1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development; and the Councils’ housing land supply position?
DEVELOPMENT ‘AT AN APPROPRIATE SCALE TO THE SIZE OF THE SETTLEMENT’
REASON FOR CHANGE
5.25 Policy SUS2 states that development in rural areas will be directed to the settlements with DDBs, and will take place “at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement”. However, there is little in the supporting text to explain what this phrase means and what factors should be taken into account in making a judgement on whether a scheme is of an ‘appropriate scale’. This raises the issue of whether the supporting text should be amended to provide greater clarity on this point. PROPOSED APPROACH
5.26 The supporting text to Policy SUS2 raises concerns about the sustainability of a more dispersed pattern of development, but also recognises that rural communities may need some growth to meet their local needs. The supporting text therefore establishes that meeting local needs is an important consideration in determining whether development is ‘at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement’. However, there are a number of other considerations, which should also be taken into account in making this judgement. 5.27 Paragraph 156 of the NPPF indicates that local plans should include strategic policies to deliver the strategic priorities for an area. This suggests that proposals of a strategic nature, both in rural areas and elsewhere, should normally be dealt with in a review of a local plan, rather than against Policy SUS2. 5.28 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF indicates that a core principle is that planning should “take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas … recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”. This suggests that in rural areas proposals that would change the intrinsic character of a settlement or detract from the attractiveness of the countryside that forms part of its setting would not accord with this core principle. 5.29 The supporting text to Policy SUS2 recognises that each village will be different in terms of its needs, opportunities and constraints, and this very much applies to infrastructure. Some villages may have few facilities and find it difficult to cope with additional development, whereas others may have facilities that could be supported by an increase in population, which would help to maintain or enhance the vitality of rural communities.
Page | 21 Page 140 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
5.30 It is also important to recognise that whilst an individual development at a particular village may be at an appropriate scale, in combination with other similar schemes it may have a cumulative impact that is detrimental. 5.31 It is suggested that these are the main factors that the councils should have regard to when in determining whether development is ‘at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement’. Views are sought on the appropriateness of these identified factors and whether any others should also be identified in the supporting text to Policy SUS2.
5-v. Should the following factors be taken into account when determining whether a development proposal in rural areas is “at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement”? whether the proposals are of a strategic nature; whether the proposals would help communities to meet their local needs; whether the proposals would change the character and setting of the settlement; whether local infrastructure, including any necessary improvements, could accommodate or be supported by the proposed development; cumulative impacts?
NEWLY DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANS
REASON FOR CHANGE
5.32 The local plan includes a list of settlements with defined development boundaries, which were carried forward from the previously adopted local plan. These are the larger settlements which generally have at least some community facilities and are considered to be the most sustainable locations for growth. 5.33 Other smaller settlements, which are considered to be less sustainable locations for growth, do not have DDBs. However, the supporting text to Policy SUS5 indicates that communities may define new DDBs around such settlements in neighbourhood plans, as a means of enabling local needs to be met. 5.34 Once a new DDB has been defined in a neighbourhood plan, which may be around a settlement with a small population and very few facilities, it then becomes subject to Policy SUS2 allowing development within the boundary. This may be appropriate to help meet local needs, but it also means that larger scale development in rural areas, potentially outside DDBs would be directed towards such settlements. 5.35 At the time of writing, new DDBs have been established at Godmanstone, Loders and Uploders and further new DDBs may be identified as more neighbourhood plans are produced. Whilst it may be appropriate for smaller communities to seek to meet their own local development needs through the identification of new DDBs, there is a concern that the strategic policy framework provided by Policy SUS 2 should not direct development to these settlements, as this may undermine the objective of directing the majority of development to larger, more sustainable settlements. Page | 22 Page 141 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
PROPOSED APPROACH
5.36 All settlements with DDBs have a population of more than 200, with the exception of those settlements where new DDBs have been established in neighbourhood plans; namely Godmanstone, Loders and Uploders. Further new DDBs may be identified as more neighbourhood plans are produced, but these are also likely to be around settlements with very small populations and few facilities. 5.37 Where a local community decides to establish an entirely new DDB around a settlement, it would, through the preparation of the relevant neighbourhood plan, also have had the opportunity to allocate specific sites for development to meet local needs, if this was considered appropriate. 5.38 Policy SUS 2 and its supporting text could be amended to clarify that a different policy approach should be taken to settlements where an entirely new DDB has been introduced in a neighbourhood plan. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not proposed to alter Policy SUS 2 and its supporting text in relation to DDBs that were originally identified in the local plan and subsequently amended in a neighbourhood plan.
5-vi. Should different policy approaches apply to settlements with DDBs identified in the local plan and settlements with new DDBs identified through neighbourhood plans?
THE SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY AND PORTLAND
REASON FOR CHANGE
5.39 Portland falls within the second tier of the settlement hierarchy, identifying it as one of the ‘market and coastal towns’ which will be a focus for future development. However, ‘Portland’ is not a town as such but a collection of settlements that together support a range of services typically found in a town. 5.40 Some amendments to the local plan would help to provide clarity on how the settlement hierarchy in Policy SUS2 relates to the settlements on the Isle of Portland. PROPOSED APPROACH
5.41 It may be clearer if the individual settlements on the Isle of Portland were referred to as ‘the settlements on Portland’ rather than the ‘coastal town’ of Portland. 5.42 The local plan proposals map draws a number of ‘defined development boundaries’ (DDBs) around the settlements on the Isle of Portland. These are Easton; Fortuneswell; Grove; Southwell; and Weston. However, a closer examination of the Policies Map shows that the list does not accurately reflect the way in which the DDBs have been drawn. 5.43 The area referred to as ‘Fortuneswell’ also includes much of Portland Port and Osprey Quay. It is considered that the ‘settlement’ as drawn on the Policies Map could be more accurately referred to as ‘Fortuneswell & Castletown’.
Page | 23 Page 142 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
5.44 The local plan lists Easton and Weston separately. However, on the Policies Map, they share a single DDB and are shown as a single ‘settlement’. It is considered that this ‘settlement’ as drawn on the Proposals Map could be more accurately referred to as ‘Easton / Weston’.
5-vii. Should the settlements on Portland be defined to reflect the defined development boundaries shown on the Local Plan Proposals Map? If so, should the settlements be defined as: Fortuneswell & Castletown; Grove; Easton / Weston; and Southwell?
Page | 24 Page 143 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
6. Development at Dorchester
TOWN PROFILE
6.1 Dorchester is the county town and an important service centre providing jobs and services for a wide hinterland. Consequently, the town relies on a much wider area (including both nearby villages and the town of Weymouth to the south) for its workforce and economic success. 6.2 The town has a population of 19,4812 and has rapidly grown over the past few years as a result of the development of Poundbury. This growth will continue for about another eight years at which point development at Poundbury is expected to be complete. 6.3 The town currently also has around twice as many jobs (18,400) as economically active residents (9,619). Workers commute in from nearby towns (particularly Weymouth) and from the surrounding rural area. Two of the largest local employers are Dorset County Hospital and Dorset County Council, which between them employ 50% of people working in Dorchester. There is a high level of need for more affordable housing in the town. Figure 6.1: Population profile – Dorchester
Dorchester England and Wales
6.4 Dorchester is the centre for many services and activities in the locality, including shopping, education, healthcare and library services. The town’s leisure offer has grown considerably in recent years as a result of the development of Brewery Square. 6.5 Dorchester has two railway stations. Dorchester South is on the Weymouth to London (Waterloo) line and Dorchester West is on the Weymouth to Bristol line. 6.6 The town centre has an attractive and healthy shopping core with low numbers of vacancies and a high level of demand registered from operators in the town. The area’s Roman and pre-Roman heritage is a significant feature of the town.
2 2014 mid-year population estimates
Page | 25 Page 144 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON GROWTH AT DORCHESTER
6.7 The inspector for the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Joint Local Plan considered it an “imperative that an early review is undertaken to identify additional land”. In reaching this conclusion, the inspector also indicated that “a review will also provide an opportunity to consider growth options at Dorchester”. 6.8 Opportunities for development at Dorchester are constrained by natural features, heritage and the town’s setting in the landscape. The Inspector highlighted that considering growth options at Dorchester “is a crucial, albeit difficult, matter for the Councils to resolve but one which it is vital to address when examining options for further growth.” 6.9 There is limited capacity within the town’s physical boundaries of the bypass and River Frome. The inspector noted that “Implementing options for development within existing town boundaries provides, at best, a short term solution to meeting future housing and employment needs.” 6.10 Development north of Dorchester was rejected during the preparation of the adopted local plan on the grounds of flooding and landscape impact. However the inspector stated that “it is not obvious that other or better alternatives exist or indeed whether the Councils are committed to finding a solution to the longer-term expansion of the county town.” The Inspector concluded that allocating significant housing growth at Crossways was not “a particularly sustainable option for meeting the longer term needs of the county town”. 6.11 The Inspector modified the Local Plan to include a statement ensuring that “a strategy is in place to meet the long term development needs at or in the vicinity of Dorchester by 2021 and that a site or sites necessary for its implementation are identified as part of the review proposals.”
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AROUND THE TOWN
6.12 Dorchester is constrained by:
the Dorset AONB; the River Frome floodplain & SSSI; scheduled ancient monuments primarily related to the town’s Roman and pre-Roman heritage; The Dorchester, Charminster and Stinsford Conservation Areas; and Kingston Maurward Registered Park and Garden.
Page | 26 Page 145 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 6.2 – Constraints around Dorchester Page 146 Page
Page | 27
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
OPPORTUNITIES
6.13 National policy is clear that there are three dimensions to sustainable development, the economic dimension, the social dimension and the environmental dimension. Future growth at Dorchester will help: Economic
To support long term economic growth and job creation – including by providing homes for the necessary workforce; Diversify the town’s economy; Act as a catalyst for improved service and facilities provision, strengthening the towns role as a centre for its wide hinterland; To maintain and improve the variety of shops in the town centre; Reinforce the town as a destination for tourists all year round; Social To meet local housing need; Balance the level of jobs and homes to improve the town’s self containment; Environmental To improve transport infrastructure and reduce traffic congestion within the town; Enhance informal recreation opportunities around the town; Help to maintain the wider valued wildlife and the natural environment in Dorset by focusing growth at the town.
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SITES
6.14 In considering the future growth options at Dorchester the councils have undertaken an initial 360 degree search of all possible development site options around the town (Figure 6.3). Unsuitable options have been discounted at an early stage through an initial site sieving exercise with more detail in the accompanying background paper and sustainability appraisal.
Page | 28 Page 147 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 6.3: Broad areas of search – Dorchester
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
North of Impacts on landscape, heritage assets and water quality A Dorchester will need to be addressed if this area is taken forward.
Development is likely to result in unacceptable impacts on B Stinsford heritage assets, including Scheduled Monuments, Historic × Park and Garden, and Conservation Area.
East of Max Development is likely to result in unacceptable impacts on C × Gate the scheduled monuments within this area.
Potential for some development on the north-eastern South-East of part of this area, adjacent to the bypass, avoiding the D Dorchester potential impacts on the Scheduled Monuments, Dorset AONB and SNCI.
Potential for significant impacts on Dorset AONB South-West of E landscape and heritage assets, though there are Dorchester opportunities within the bypass.
Potential for some development in the southern part of North-West of F this area, avoiding the Scheduled Monuments on the Poundbury northern part and impacts on the Dorset AONB.
Page | 29 Page 148 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
West of Potential for impacts on water quality in this area. G Charminster
Potential for some development on the southern part of South-East of H this area, avoiding impacts on the Scheduled Monument Charminster and SNCI to the north.
6.15 The conclusion of the first high level filter of site options has identified seven options outlined in figure 6.4. For each option an indicative capacity has been calculated and possible development issues have been identified.
Page | 30 Page 149 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 6.4: Options for growth at Dorchester Page 150 Page
Page | 31
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS INDICATIVE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CAPACITY (DWELLINGS)
D1: South-East of 2,100 Landscape impact - Impact on Charminster Charminster Conservation Area - Impact on listed Little Court and structures associated with listed Wolfeton House
D2: North of Dorchester, 3,200 Landscape impacts - Impact on Dorchester west of Slyer's Lane Conservation area - Ancient woodland - Flood risk
D3: North of Dorchester, 3,000 Landscape impact - Impact on Dorchester, Higher west of A35 Kingston Farm and Stinsford Conservation Areas - Impact on Kingston Maurward Registered Park and Garden - Impact on listed Birkin House, Stinsford Cottages and milestone on Stinsford Hill
D4: South-East of 850 Impact on listed Max Gate and Old Came Rectory Dorchester
D5: South-West of 350 Impact on nearby residents Dorchester within bypass
D6: West of Poundbury 1,000 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on Maiden Castle
D7: West of Charminster 1,550 Landscape impact - Setting of Charminster Conservation Area - Impact on listed buildings in Charminster
6.16 As Dorchester is heavily constrained and there are limited options for development without crossing the physical constraints of the bypass or the water meadows of the River Frome, there will need to be a decision made about the level of growth to be planned for at this point in time. If a lower level of growth is to be planned for, individual options could be taken forward in this plan. If a longer-term decision about the direction of growth is to be made at this stage, however, requiring larger-scale growth, a combination of site options will need to be considered. For example D1, D2 & D3 could be developed as a larger scale development to the north of Dorchester. Alternative combinations could see the expansion of Charminster by bringing forward D1 & D7. The potential advantages of making a longer-term decision are that there is greater certainty about where future growth will take place, longer term infrastructure needs can be considered and the direction of growth will be established for future local plan reviews. 6.17 Inevitably different combinations of sites will have distinctive infrastructure requirements. Large scale development would require more significant infrastructure such as schools and roads where as smaller scale development would deliver less infrastructure. In addition, there may be a need to deliver land to accommodate employment uses to support additional jobs. 6.18 At this stage, no commitment is being made to the development of any individual or group of options. Information about the potential development options is being sought.
Page | 32 Page 151 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Additional work will need to be undertaken to further refine site suitability and fully establish infrastructure requirements as well as constraints to development such as landscape or heritage impacts.
6-i. Dorchester has grown at an average rate of 175 new dwellings each year over the last 5 years. Should we plan for a lower level of growth, maintain that level of growth, or take a strategic longer term view for the growth of the town?
6-ii. Are there any issues related any of the site options that are not mentioned here?
6-iii. What are the infrastructure requirements for the development of the site options, individually or in combination with others?
Page | 33 Page 152 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
7. Development at Sherborne
TOWN PROFILE
7.1 The historic market town of Sherborne is a major centre in the north of the district. The population of the town is 9,6453 with the population structure shown Figure 7.1. 7.2 It has a wide range of facilities including a large number of small specialist businesses. It serves a wide hinterland with links to the towns of Dorchester, Wincanton and Sturminster Newton. The town plays host to a number of private schools which are significant local employers. Figure 7.1: Population profile – Sherborne
Sherborne England and Wales
7.3 The town also has strong links with Yeovil to the west, which supplies a significant proportion of the town’s workforce. The working age population of Sherborne is 3,778 compared with the 5,080 jobs in the town. House prices in the town are significantly more expensive than in Yeovil; one of the reasons for the high commuting levels. 7.4 Sherborne is on the London (Waterloo) to Exeter railway line with hourly services connecting to Salisbury and Yeovil. The town sits on the A30 which provides easy links to Yeovil and on to the A303.
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON GROWTH AT SHERBORNE
7.5 The inspector made it clear that in his view “Sherborne is a sustainable market town with a wide range of services and facilities and as one of the largest settlements in the Plan area it is an appropriate and suitable location for accommodating some development”. 7.6 In relation to development opportunities around the town, the inspector recognised that further development at Barton Farm “would be visible but its overall effect would be
3 2014 mid-year population estimate
Page | 34 Page 153 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
limited because the topography restricts views from other locations including those close to the town”. He also highlighted that further extension of Barton Farm “would assist in meeting future housing needs and provide an opportunity to secure a new link road from the A30 and improve access to the north”. 7.7 The inspector quoted earlier work on the local plan which concluded that “high house prices had led to more commuting” to Sherborne. “Residents were travelling to better paid jobs elsewhere while those with lower-paid jobs could not afford to live there and had to commute from surrounding places such as Yeovil”. 7.8 There is limited available land within the existing built-up area of the town. Given the Inspector’s conclusion that “the identification of further land at Sherborne is, in my opinion, a necessary and logical requirement for the successful and sustainable planning of this part of West Dorset” greenfield sites will need to be considered through the review of the local plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AROUND THE TOWN
7.9 Constraints around Sherborne include:
Floodplain of the River Yeo; Scheduled Monuments of Sherborne Castle, Sherborne Abbey and the Roman site by Pinford Lane); Historic Parks and Gardens associated with Sherborne Castle; Sandford Lane Quarry SSSI and nearby SNCI; The physical barrier of the railway line.
Page | 35 Page 154 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 7.2: Constraints around Sherborne Page 155 Page
Page | 36
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
OPPORTUNITIES
7.10 The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Future growth at Sherborne will help: Economic
To support longer term economic growth and job creation in Sherborne – including by providing homes for the necessary workforce; Support the existing and improve the variety of shops in the town centre; To enhance the town as a significant tourist destination based on its rich heritage; To boost the tourism economy, support all year round tourism in the area by promoting Sherborne and the surrounding area as a place to visit; Social
To provide a better balance of jobs and housing, reducing in commuting from nearby settlements; Provide more affordable housing to meet the needs of local people; Balance the population profile of the town, encouraging young people to stay; To retain and expand local facilities and services enhancing the towns role as a local service centre; Environmental Conserve and enhance the rich historic character of the town, protecting important heritage assets from inappropriate development; To relieve congestion in the town through improvements to transport infrastructure; Minimise impact on local landscapes.
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SITES
7.11 Sherborne has been subject to a full 360 degree assessment to identify potential options for development. Unsuitable options have been discounted at an early stage through an initial site sieving exercise with more detail in the accompanying background paper and sustainability appraisal.
Page | 37 Page 156 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 7.3: Broad areas of search – Sherborne
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
Impacts on the landscape due to the land rising to the north, the setting of heritage assets to the south, and East of Castle issues with water quality and flooding with respect to the A Town Way river to the south. An area which avoids the river to the south and the higher ground to the north of this area may be suitable for development.
Land adjacent Impacts on the heritage assets on this site. B to Sherborne × Castle
Impacts on the heritage assets to the east and significant landscape impacts. In addition, there is also potential for flooding, and problems with access to essential services and facilities as a result of the physical separation caused Land to South by the floodplain and the railway line. Development in C × of river Yeo this area would also result in the loss of a sports field which provides an important recreational facility for the community. There are potential issues with the topography in parts of this area, with the site sloping steeply to the south.
Page | 38 Page 157 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
Sherborne Impacts on the adjacent Conservation Area, flooding D School Playing issues, and the loss of a school sports field which provides × Fields an important recreational facility for the community.
Potential for development on the northern section of this West of area, avoiding the loss of the sports field and reducing the E Sherborne impact on the water course on the southern boundary of this area.
Impacts on landscape will need to be addressed if this F Barton Farm area is taken forward.
Land North of Impacts on local wildlife designations and an G × Marston Road internationally important geological site.
This land rises steeply to the north and development in Land North of this area of local landscape importance is likely to be H Quarr lane visually prominent and affect the setting of Sherborne, × Park resulting in unacceptable landscape impacts and the loss of a sports field as an important community facility.
7.12 The conclusion of the first high level filter of site options has identified three options outlined in figure 7.4. For each option an indicative capacity has been calculated and possible development issues have been identified.
Page | 39 Page 158 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 7.4: Options for growth at Sherborne Page 159 Page
Page | 40
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
DEVELOPMENT OPTION INDICATIVE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CAPACITY (DWELLINGS)
Retention of sports fields - retention of allotments - S1: Lenthay 1200 minimise impact on nearby watercourse.
Landscape impact - Opportunities to address transport S2: Barton Farm 1100 issues.
Landscape impact - Impact on scheduled monuments - S3: East of Castle Town 650 Impact on River Yeo - Impact on listed Blackmarsh Way Farmhouse and associated buildings.
7.13 Although three site options have been identified that could be developed individually there is no reason why combinations should not be considered or smaller portions of the options. 7.14 At this stage, no commitment is being made to the development of any individual or group of options. Information about the potential development options is being sought. Additional work will need to be undertaken to refine site suitability and fully establish infrastructure and employment land requirements as well as constraints to development such as landscape or heritage impacts.
7-i. Sherborne has grown at an average rate of about 40 dwellings per year over the last 5 years. Should we plan for a lower level of growth, maintain that level of growth, or take a strategic longer term view for the growth of the town?
7-ii. Are there any additional issues related to the development of any of the site options?
7-iii. What are the infrastructure requirements for the development of the site options, individually or in combination with others?
Page | 41 Page 160 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
8. Development at Weymouth ( and Chickerell)
TOWN PROFILE
8.1 After the Bournemouth and Poole conurbation, Weymouth is the largest urban area in Dorset with a population of 52,1684. The town of Chickerell to the north west of Weymouth has a population of 5,5245. The population structure of Weymouth is shown in Figure 8.1. Figure 8.1: Population profile – Weymouth
Weymouth England and Wales
8.2 Weymouth is a significant commercial and employment centre and is a nationally important tourist and recreation destination attracting half a million staying visitors a year. 8.3 Much of Weymouth’s employment provision is located on the edge of the town within West Dorset district (the Granby and Lynch Lane Industrial Estates). A significant number of residents also work in Dorchester so there is a high level of out-commuting. 8.4 Much of the surrounding countryside is within the Dorset AONB, and other parts of Weymouth include national or international designations which protect the environment and restrict the amount of land available for future development. The high quality of life is a major attraction for people moving to the area, particularly to retire, and this ageing population places demands on health, housing and support services. 8.5 Weymouth urban area has two railway stations, one in the town centre and one at Upwey to the north. The railway line connects to both Bristol and London (Waterloo). Weymouth has a good network of bus routes with frequent services to Dorchester and Portland.
4 2014 mid-year population estimates 5 2014 mid-year population estimates
Page | 42 Page 161 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON GROWTH AT WEYMOUTH
8.6 The local plan inspector did not recommend that any specific locations in Weymouth should be examined for their future growth potential. However, he did recommend that the Local Plan Review should identify locations for development to 2036 and recognised Weymouth’s “role as a commercial and employment centre”. 8.7 Opportunities for development in Weymouth are constrained by its proximity to the sea and the tight administrative boundary and the councils have previously sought to maximise the use of available land within the town’s constraints. The inspector acknowledged that “Peripheral sites on the edge of Weymouth have a functional relationship and obvious link to the town despite being in West Dorset”. 8.8 The council has more recently defined a town centre strategy area within which key brownfield sites have been identified to deliver a mixture of uses. The strategy is being guided by a town centre masterplan which was adopted in October 2015. The inspector indicated that “any development would need careful treatment to ensure the distinctive character of the centre with its mix of historic buildings is not damaged. Nevertheless, there are areas where improvements would be beneficial and where new or more intensive uses could be introduced.” 8.9 Given the need to look forward a further 5 years, and the size of Weymouth, it will be important through the review to consider what additional growth will be required to meet the needs of Weymouth over the extended plan period.
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON GROWTH AT CHICKERELL
8.10 The local plan inspector acknowledged that Chickerell and other areas around Weymouth town “have a functional relationship and obvious link to the town despite being in West Dorset” and that the growth proposed at Chickerell “will contribute towards the housing needs of the Weymouth”. 8.11 Land is allocated to the north and east of Chickerell in the adopted local plan and a further site off Radipole Lane was considered during the plan’s preparation. The inspector commented that this site is “well related to the existing residential area at Southill, has good road connections and is close to facilities and services”
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS IN AND AROUND THE TOWNS
8.12 Weymouth and Chickerell are constrained by:
Their proximity to the sea The Dorset AONB (to the north) The Heritage Coastline Conservation Areas SSSIs and SACs Coastal erosion and flood risk in Weymouth Town Centre
Page | 43 Page 162 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 8.2: Constraints around Weymouth and Chickerell Page 163 Page
Page | 44
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
OPPORTUNITIES
8.13 The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Future growth at Weymouth will help to: Economic
Bring about a strong diversified economy building on its coastal location and advanced engineering sector; Provide a better balance of housing and jobs reducing the amount of out-commuting; Regenerate the town centre and seafront providing improved flood defences; Maintain and improve the variety of shops in the town centre; Boost the tourism economy, supporting all year round tourism in the area by promoting Weymouth and the surrounding area as a vibrant place to visit; Improve transport infrastructure within the town; Social
Meet local housing needs, including increasing the supply of affordable homes in the area and meeting demands for all tenures of housing; Balance the towns population profile; Retain and expand local facilities and public services including schools, doctors’ surgeries, sports centres and utilities; Environmental
Secure improved flood defences for the town centre; Improve access to green spaces by enhancing provision across the town; Maintain and enhance the character of the town recognising its seaside heritage; Improve air quality in town by reducing traffic.
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SITES
8.14 In considering the future growth options at Weymouth and Chickerell, the councils have undertaken an initial 360 degree search of all possible development site options around the towns. Unsuitable options have been discounted at an early stage through an initial site sieving exercise, with more detail available in the accompanying background paper and sustainability appraisal.
Page | 45 Page 164 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 8.3: Broad areas of search – Weymouth
© Crown Copyright and database right (2016). Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100019690
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
Land north of Impacts on European wildlife sites, World Heritage Site, A Bowleaze scheduled monument and AONB. Vulnerable to coastal × Coveway erosion and at risk of flooding.
Land north and Impacts on national wildlife designations, the Heritage B east of Sutton Coast and the Conservation Area. × Poyntz
Between Impacts on Scheduled Monument, SNCI, AONB and C Sutton Poyntz Conservation Area. × and Preston
Land east of D Impacts on Scheduled Monument, SNCI and AONB. × Littlemoor
Potential for development adjacent to built up area. Land east of E Impacts on landscape, AONB, and heritage assets need to Upwey be given consideration.
Land in the Impacts upon national and local wildlife designations. F × Lorton Valley Area at risk of flooding.
Page | 46 Page 165 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
Potential for small scale development in the south eastern Wyke Oliver G part of this area, avoiding impacts upon wildlife and Farm landscape.
Land north of Impacts on landscape including AONB, conservation area H × Upwey and SNCI
Land west of Impacts on conservation area, landscape and AONB. Area I Upwey / at risk of flooding and access difficulties. × Broadwey
Land north of Possibility for significant landscape impacts and impact on J × Chickerell AONB.
Potential for small scale development away from areas at K Nottington risk of flooding. Need to consider impacts on conservation areas.
Potential for development adjacent to built up area Land East of L Consideration needs to be given to impact on wildlife Chickerell corridor connecting SSSI to open countryside.
Land at Impacts on SSSI and the loss of golf course as a M Weymouth recreational facility. × Golf Course
Coastal strip Potential for small scale development adjacent to built up N west of Wyke area. Impact on Heritage Coast needs to be given Regis consideration
8.15 The conclusion of the first high level filter of site options has left 5 options outlined in Figure 8.5. For each option an indicative capacity has been calculated and possible development issues identified.
Page | 47 Page 166 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 8.5: Options for growth at Weymouth and Chickerell Page 167 Page
Page | 48
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
DEVELOPMENT OPTION INDICATIVE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CAPACITY (DWELLINGS)
W1: West of Southill 350 Landscape impact - Potential impact on SSSI - Proximity of electricity substation.
W2: Wyke Oliver Farm 300 Redevelopment of farm buildings - Landscape impact Topographical constraints - Green link to Lodmoor.
W3: West of Relief Road, 180 Within AONB - Landscape impact - Vehicular access Upwey constraint.
W4: South of Wey Valley 200 Impact on Radipole Conservation Area - Landscape impact - Impact on listed Corfe Hill House
W5: Adjacent Budmouth 100 Impact on Heritage Coast - Impact on international College wildlife designations
8.16 Five site options have been identified adjoining the urban area of Weymouth. Any of these sites could be developed individually, but there is no reason why combinations should not be considered or smaller portions of each of the options. 8.17 At this stage, no commitment is being made to the development of any individual or group of options. Information about the potential development options is being sought. Additional work will need to be undertaken to refine site suitability and fully establish infrastructure and employment land requirements as well as constraints to development such as landscape or heritage impacts.
8-i. Weymouth urban area has grown at an average rate of 150 dwellings per year over the last 5 years. Should we plan for a lower level of growth, maintain that level of growth, or take a strategic longer term view for the growth of the town?
8-ii. Are there any additional issues related to the development of the site options?
8-iii. What are the infrastructure requirements for the development of the sites options, individually or in combination with others?
Page | 49 Page 168 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
9. Development at Beaminster
TOWN PROFILE
9.1 Beaminster is a small rural market town, located wholly within the Dorset AONB. It has a population of just over 3,000 and provides services and facilities to the surrounding rural area. It has a secondary school, a range of local shops and community facilities in its centre, and some significant local businesses. 9.2 The town lies about 8km north of Bridport, on the A3066, at the source of the River Brit. Crewkerne lies about 10km north-west of the town, with its rail links to London Waterloo, Sherborne and Exeter. Beaminster has an impressive landscape setting, set within a bowl of hills that provide a dramatic backdrop to the north of the town. 9.3 There is a net out-flow of workers (by about 400), as there are more economically active residents than people working in the town. The major employers in the town are Clipper Teas, Danisco and Dorset County Council. Figure 9.1: Age Structure – Beaminster
Beaminster England and Wales
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON GROWTH AT BEAMINSTER
9.4 The planning inspector’s report into the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan noted that “three sites were identified in the Pre-Submission Plan as suitable locations for housing provision in Beaminster but were later reduced to one following public consultation on the draft proposals”. Local residents cited road safety concerns along a narrow section of East Street in relation to the proposal at Hollymore Lane. 9.5 The inspector noted that the “Highway Authority has been unable to resolve complaints about this problem”. It was suggested that a ‘shared surface’ could provide a workable solution and the Inspector was of the view that such a surface “could help offset safety issues although further work should be undertaken to determine what level of additional development could be accommodated”.
Page | 50 Page 169 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
9.6 In relation to the Land off Broadwindsor Road allocation (BEAM1) for 120 dwellings, the Inspector concluded that the site does not represent “major development in the AONB” however he did accept that the site would represent “a significant scheme for Beaminster”. 9.7 The inspector went on to state that he had “had regard to its potential impact on the landscape while recognising that some development is required to maintain the vitality of the settlement” and concluded that “there are exceptional circumstances to support the allocation because of the need for new homes and jobs”.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AROUND THE TOWN
9.8 Beaminster is constrained by:
the Dorset AONB; the River Brit floodplain Scheduled monuments and listed buildings Beaminster Conservation Area; and Beaminster Manor & Parnham House Registered Park and Gardens.
Page | 51 Page 170 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 9.2: Constraints around Beaminster. Page 171 Page
Page | 52
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
OPPORTUNITIES
9.9 The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Future growth at Beaminster will help to: Economic
Support further jobs provision in the town; Continue its role as a local service centre to surrounding villages; Social Meet local needs for housing including affordable housing; Improve accessibility to community facilities including schools; Environmental Retain its attractive historic character; Respect the beauty of the surrounding countryside; Help resolve transport issues.
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SITES
9.10 In considering the future growth options at Beaminster the Council has undertaken an initial 360 degree search of all possible development site options around the town. Unsuitable options have been discounted at an early stage through an initial site sieving exercise which can be viewed in the accompanying background paper and sustainability appraisal. Figure 9.3: Broad areas of search – Beaminster
Page | 53 Page 172 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
North-East of Impacts on AONB, landscape, Historic Park and Garden A × Beaminster and setting of Beaminster Conservation Area
Impacts on AONB, landscape, Historic Park and Garden East of B and SNCI. Potential for development in the south of this Beaminster area.
Land between Impacts on AONB, landscape, Beaminster conservation Whitcombe area. Potential for development in the north of this area. C Road & Hollymoor Common Lane
Land between Impacts on AONB, landscape, Historic Park and Garden, Bridport Road Beaminster conservation area and SNCI. Part of area is at D × & Whitcombe risk of flooding. Road
Impacts on AONB, landscape, SNCI, Historic Park and South of E Garden and Beaminster conservation area. Part of area is × Beaminster at risk of flooding.
South of Impacts on AONB, landscape and heritage assets. F Broadwindsor Road
West of Tunnel Impacts on AONB, landscape and heritage assets. G Road
East of Tunnel Impacts on AONB and landscape. Part of area is at risk of H Road flooding.
North of Impact on AONB and landscape impacts I Beaminster
9.11 The conclusion of the first high level filter of site options has identified six options outlined in figure 9.4. For each option an indicative capacity has been calculated and possible development issues have been identified.
Page | 54 Page 173 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 9.4 Options for growth at Beaminster Page 174 Page
Page | 55
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS INDICATIVE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CAPACITY (DWELLINGS)
Be1: South of 115 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on listed Barrowfield Broadwindsor Road Farmhouse and other buildings
Be2: West of Tunnel Road 278 Within Dorset AONB - Potential heritage impact
Be3: West of Chantry 95 Within Dorset AONB - Landscape impact - Highway Lane capacity
Be4: Off Bowgrove Road 149 Within Dorset AONB - Landscape impact - Impact on listed Bowgrove Farmhouse - Highway capacity
Be5: East of Whitcombe 161 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on listed Edgely Cottage Road and listed buildings in East Street
Be6: North of Hollymoor 51 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on listed buildings in East Common Lane Street
9.12 Although the table and map presents six options that could be developed individually there is no reason why they could not come forward in combination or as smaller parcels. 9.13 At this stage, no commitment is being made to the development of any individual or group of options. Information about the potential development options is being sought. Additional work will need to be undertaken to further refine site suitability and fully establish infrastructure and employment land requirements as well as constraints to development such as landscape or heritage impacts.
9-i. Beaminster has grown at an average rate of just 3 dwellings a year over the last 5 years. Should we maintain that level of growth, or take a strategic longer term view for the growth of the town?
9-ii. Are there any additional issues related to the development of the site options?
9-iii. What are the infrastructure requirements for the development of the site options, individually or in combination with others?
Page | 56 Page 175 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
10. Development at Bridport
SETTLEMENT PROFILE
10.1 Located within the Dorset AONB, Bridport is the largest town in the west of the district. The busy market town is located on the A35 south coast trunk road about 20km west of Dorchester, and extends south to the harbour at West Bay. 10.2 Bridport has a population of about 13,6606 people within the built-up area (which includes parts of the adjoining parishes of Allington, Bradpole and Bothenhampton). The population structure for Bridport is shown in Figure 10.1. Figure 10.1: Population structure – Bridport
Bridport England and Wales
10.3 It has a popular weekly market, a good range of local and national shops, healthcare centre, schools, community buildings, and several industrial estates. These factors make it the most suitable and sustainable location for further development in this part of the district. 10.4 Bridport serves a wide rural area for higher level services such as shopping, education, healthcare, leisure, entertainment and library services. The town is however relatively well self contained with the number of people working in the town slightly higher than the total number of economically active residents, by about 900. 10.5 The closest railway stations to Bridport are at Dorchester on the Weymouth to London (Waterloo) line and on the Weymouth to Bristol line; and at Axminster on the Exeter to London (Waterloo) line. There are reasonably regular bus services to and from the town.
6 2014 mid-year population estimates
Page | 57 Page 176 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON GROWTH AT BRIDPORT
10.6 The inspector noted that “as the largest settlement in this part of West Dorset, Bridport was the most suitable location to meet future development needs in both the immediate and wider area”. 10.7 While national policy protects AONBs from major development unless there are exceptional circumstances and development is in the public interest, the inspector acknowledged that the “Councils are well aware of the importance of protecting designated landscape but face the difficult problem of balancing such concerns with the need to provide homes and jobs to meet future needs”. The inspector recognised that “In order to achieve this and adhere to sustainable development principles it is inevitable that some areas in the AONB will be affected”. 10.8 The inspector concluded that there were “exceptional circumstances to justify the identification of Vearse Farm” as an allocation within the local plan. He stated that his overall view was that Vearse Farm was a “relatively well-contained site bounded to the west and south by the A35 bypass, by the B3162 to the north and the current western limits to the town on the east”. The scale of the development (760 dwellings) was considered by the inspector to offer opportunities to address some traffic issues and introduce new facilities into the town.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AROUND THE TOWN
10.9 Bridport is constrained by:
the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); extensive areas at flood risk; the surrounding topography; the World Heritage Site designation of the adjoining coastline; Bridport, Bothenhampton, Bradpole, Walditch and West Bay Conservation Areas; and Downe Hall Historic Parks and Garden.
Page | 58 Page 177 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 10.2: Constraints around Bridport Page 178 Page
Page | 59
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
10.10 The relationship of the surrounding hills with the flood meadows is central to the character of Bridport. The town is located between the meadows and the hills which, therefore, dictate its boundaries and form. The flood meadow areas are important as buffers between the older town and newer development to the east, and act as open spaces within the town. 10.11 In addition to these, a large area of parkland at Walditch is important to the character and setting of both Bridport and Walditch, and a disused quarry at Bothenhampton is a valuable wildlife site.
OPPORTUNITIES
10.12 The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Future growth at Bridport will help: Economic
Meet the growth needs of the western part of West Dorset in the most sustainable location; Support the continued prosperity of the town supporting existing and new facilities; Social Provide much needed affordable housing within the town; Complement the development of Vearse Farm and other allocations by providing for growth needs in the longer term; Environmental Respect the town’s character derived from its heritage, the Dorset AONB, the floodplain, the surrounding topography and countryside views.
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SITES
10.13 In considering the future growth options at Bridport the councils have undertaken an initial 360 degree search of all possible development site options around the town. Unsuitable options have been discounted at an early stage through an initial site sieving exercise with more detail in the accompanying background paper and sustainability appraisal.
Page | 60 Page 179 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 10.3: Broad Areas of Search – Bridport
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
Potential for some development in this area avoiding North of A impacts on Dorset AONB, landscape and the parts of area Bradpole at risk of flooding.
Happy Island Potential for development within this area avoiding B Way impacts on the Dorset AONB and areas at risk of flooding.
East of Lee Potential for development within this area avoiding C Lane impacts on the Dorset AONB
Land between Within Dorset AONB, impacts on SNCI, landscape and D Bridport and conservation areas. × Walditch
Potential for development within this area avoiding E East of Wych impacts on Dorset AONB, SNCI and landscape.
Potential for development within this area avoiding East of West F impacts on Dorset AONB, the Heritage Coast and areas at Bay risk from flooding.
North-West of Within Dorset AONB, impacts on SSSI. Part of area at risk G × West Bay of flooding and vulnerable to coastal erosion.
Page | 61 Page 180 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
Potential for some development within the bypass H Watton avoiding impacts on the Dorset AONB, on the SNCI and avoiding areas at risk of flooding.
Land south of Within Dorset AONB, impact on landscape due to I × Miles Cross topography, physically separated from built up area
Potential for some development in north east avoiding West of J impacts on Dorset AONB, on the landscape and elevated Allington areas around Allington Hill. Part of area at risk of flooding
West of Potential for some development adjacent to existing K Bradpole / urban edge in south west of the area avoiding impact on Pymore Dorset AONB, landscape and areas at risk of flooding.
The conclusion of the first high level filter of site options has left seven options outlined in Figure 10.4. For each option an indicative capacity has been calculated and possible development issues identified.
Page | 62 Page 181 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 10.4 Options for growth at Bridport Page 182 Page
Page | 63
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
DEVELOPMENT OPTION INDICATIVE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CAPACITY (DWELLINGS) Br1: East of Wychside 160 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on landscape - Impact on Close listed Wych Farmhouse - Adjacent to SNCI - Impact Heritage Coast Br2: Happy Island Way 230 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on landscape - Impact on listed Whitehouse Farmhouse - Steep slope to River Asker - Opportunity to secure significant recreation space Br3: Home Farm, 140 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on landscape - Impact on Bradpole listed Whitehouse Farmhouse, Stepps Farmhouse and Home Farmhouse - Steep slope to River Asker - Opportunity to secure significant recreation space Br4: Land north of 290 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on landscape - Distance Watford Lane / Gore Lane from town centre - Relatively high ground Br5: East of Watton 190 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on landscape - Impact on listed Providence Cottage and associated Coach House - Access issues Br6: West of Watton 170 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on landscape - Access issues Br7: Dottery Road 220 Within Dorset AONB - Impact on landscape - Impact on listed building on Dottery Road
10.14 Although Figure 10.4 presents seven options that could be developed individually, they could come forward in combination or as smaller parcels. 10.15 At this stage, no commitment is being made to the development of any individual or group of options. Information about the potential development options is being sought. Additional work will need to be undertaken to refine site suitability and fully establish infrastructure and employment land requirements as well as constraints to development such as landscape or heritage impacts.
10-i. Bridport has grown at an average rate of 20 dwellings per year over the last 5 years. This development rate is likely to be increased to approximately 100 per year until 2030. Should we plan for a level of growth lower than 100 per year, maintain that level of growth, or plan for a higher level of growth for the town?
10-ii. Are there any additional issues related to the development of any of the site options?
Page | 64 Page 183 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
10-iii. What are the infrastructure requirements for the development of the site options, individually or in combination with others?
Page | 65 Page 184 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
11. Development at Crossways
SETTLEMENT PROFILE
11.1 Crossways parish has a population of 2,267 (2011 Census). The population structure is shown in the population pyramid below. Figure 11.1: Population structure - Crossways Crossways England and Wales
11.2 The area now occupied by Crossways village was formerly an RAF fighter airbase. This airbase, known as RAF Warmwell, played an important role during the Second World War. 11.3 The village sits on the Weymouth to London (Waterloo) railway line approximately 6 miles to the east of Dorchester. Moreton railway station is located in Purbeck district just to the north east of the village. The village acts as a dormitory for Dorchester and towns further to the east. Although the village hosts a number of facilities such as the school, shop and doctors’ surgery, it relies on Dorchester for many higher level services. 11.4 Areas around the village hold an important resource of sand and gravel. Much of the resource around the village has already been extracted with further areas proposed for extraction in the County Minerals Sites Plan.
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON GROWTH AT CROSSWAYS
11.5 The inspector recognised the potential sustainability of the settlement of Crossways however he also recognised that due to the limited services in the village, many people are likely to rely on their cars. 11.6 During the preparation of the now-adopted local plan, the councils identified a number of options for housing growth at Crossways. The inspector was of the view that “there are limited differences between the sites originally identified for housing purposes.” with each of them being “a broadly sustainable location” for residential development.
Page | 66 Page 185 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
11.7 In relation to the proposed sites, the inspector concluded that the site at Frome Valley Road “would extend the village into more open landscape.” This site now has planning consent for residential development. 11.8 The inspector concluded that the Woodsford Fields site to the north of the village “would be contained by the railway line.” He commented that the site “is of sufficient merit to warrant consideration as a location for longer-term development.” 11.9 In early drafts of the local plan, the village of Crossways was earmarked for significant growth to offset some of the development needs of Dorchester. The inspector concluded that “without substantial enhancements to transport links I do not consider it is a particularly sustainable option for meeting the longer term needs of the county town.” 11.10 The inspector noted that Purbeck District Council is reviewing its Local Plan and there may be implications for the Crossways area. He recognised that a joint approach is needed should growth in this location be seen as a longer-term option.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AROUND THE VILLAGE
11.11 In comparison with other settlements in the plan area, Crossways is relatively unconstrained. The main constraint is its proximity to internationally protected Dorset Heathlands. These sites have a 400-metre exclusion buffer around them where residential development is not permitted. In addition, mitigation in the form of suitable alternative natural greenspace (i.e. recreation space) (SANGs) is required for any site within 5 kilometres. This 5 kilometre buffer covers the whole of Crossways village. 11.12 Other constraints include:
The Earthwork in Bowley's Plantation scheduled monument to the south; Skippet Heath SNCI to the south; The boundary between Purbeck District and West Dorset District, which touches the north eastern corner of the village; Areas reserved for minerals extraction.
Page | 67 Page 186 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 11.2: Constraints around Crossways Page 187 Page
Page | 68
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
OPPORTUNITIES
11.13 The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Future growth at Crossways will help: Economic
support longer term economic growth and job creation in the area; maintain and improve the variety of facilities and services in the village; provide opportunities to improve local roads and connections to Moreton station; Social
supply housing to help meet needs including the increasing the supply of affordable homes; provide opportunities for more families to move into the village; improve the viability of local facilities; Environmental
offer the opportunity to upgrade the sewage treatment works; help to maintain the wider valued wildlife and the natural environment by providing SANGs; opportunities for improved formal and informal recreation.
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SITES
11.14 In considering the future growth options at Crossways, the Council has undertaken an initial 360 degree search of all possible development site options around the village. Unsuitable options have been discounted at an early stage through an initial site sieving exercise with more detail in the accompanying background paper and sustainability appraisal.
Page | 69 Page 188 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 11.3: Broad areas of search – Crossways
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
Land at Considered by Inspector to be a realistic option for A Woodsford development, SANG required as part of any scheme. Fields
Land within Within Purbeck District (Currently being promoted by B Purbeck Purbeck District Council in the partial review of their Local - District Plan).
Land between Currently in use as a solar farm with a temporary Moreton Road permission (expires 2036). Theoretically this is a longer C and Redbridge term development option. SANG required as part of any Road scheme.
Land south of Forms part of the SANG for the allocated site therefore D existing cannot be developed without further SANG provision. × allocation
Land west of Currently Warmwell Country Touring Park, part of the Warmwell SANG for the Warmwell Road allocation and part SNCI E × Road allocation
Page | 70 Page 189 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
Land to the In part covered by Warmwell Airfield Quarry with the west of the remainder being open farmland. The development of this F link road, west area would result in breaching of the link road. SANG of Crossways required as part of any scheme.
Land to the This area already has planning consent for residential G north of Frome development. - Valley Road
11.15 As a result of the initial sieve of potential development areas, the sites in Figure 11.4 have been identified as possible options for growth at Crossways that merit further consideration. For each an indicative level of development has been calculated and potential development issues have been identified.
Page | 71 Page 190 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 11.4 Options for growth at Crossways Page 191 Page
Page | 72
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS INDICATIVE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CAPACITY (DWELLINGS)
Cr1 West Crossways 250 SANG required - Impact on road network - detached from settlement due to link road
Cr2 Warmwell Airfield 500 SANG required - Impact on road network - detached Quarry from settlement due to link road
Cr3 Woodsford Fields 400 SANG required - Impact on road network - Enclosed between settlement and railway - Provision of links to railway station
CrS4 Redbridge Road 600 Currently a solar farm (expires in 2036) - SANG required Quarry and Landfill - Impact on road network
11.16 Although the table and map present site options that could be developed individually there is no reason why different combinations should not be considered. For example, CROS1 and CROS2 could be developed together to deliver higher levels of growth. No matter which option is finally taken forward, a full assessment of infrastructure, employment land and mitigation requirements will be necessary. 11.17 The potential options will be subject to further work including assessments of landscape and heritage impacts, the potential for impacts on nearby wildlife sites and impacts on transport/the local road network.
11-i. Crossways has grown at an average rate of 14 dwellings a year over the last 5 years with the development rate expected to rise to around 60 dwellings per year as the current allocation is built. Should we plan for a lower level of growth than the 60 dwellings per year, maintain that level of growth or should a strategic longer term view for the growth of the village be planned?
11-ii. Are there any additional issues related to the development of any of the site options?
11-iii. What are the infrastructure requirements for the development of the site options, individually or in combination with others?
Page | 73 Page 192 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
12. Development at Lyme Regis
TOWN PROFILE
12.1 Lyme Regis is situated on the westernmost edge of West Dorset district, on the border with East Devon and wholly within the Dorset AONB. The town is an historic coastal town with a resident population of around 3,670. A further 1,663 people live in the adjoining village of Uplyme in East Devon. 12.2 The population structure for Lyme Regis is shown in the following population pyramid. Figure 12.1 Population Pyramid - Lyme Regis
England and Wales
Lyme Regis
12.3 The town is one of Dorset’s principal tourist resorts and an important centre for visitors to the World Heritage Coast. As a result, the town has the problem of having a significant number of second and holiday homes. Figures from 2011 show that more than 20% of the housing stock are second homes. 12.4 Land instability is an issue for parts of the town and coastal defence works have recently been completed. 12.5 The town is relatively self-contained in terms of employment, as there are about 1,500 economically active residents and 1,300 people working in the town. The type of employment offered is predominantly in accommodation and food service activities with major employers in the town being Dorset County Council and Lyme Regis Community Care Ltd. 12.6 Challenges for the local plan include taking advantage of the economic benefits of tourism and the World Heritage Site location, while meeting the local needs for affordable housing and jobs, and protecting the town’s unique character and environment.
Page | 74 Page 193 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON GROWTH AT LYME REGIS
12.7 Due to the proximity of Lyme Regis to the district boundary and the presence of Uplyme in East Devon, the inspector highlighted the need for cross-boundary discussions. He said that he did “not consider the close relationship between two parts of what can be viewed as the same settlement should be dismissed” However, he recognised that “it is unclear whether additional sites in Uplyme could be made available” and recognised that options “are limited because of the location of both settlements in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and land stability and access issues”. 12.8 The allocation at Woodberry Down, included in the adopted local plan, was considered by the inspector to be visually “well contained by the surrounding landform so its impact on the AONB is limited”.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AROUND THE TOWN
12.9 Lyme Regis is constrained by:
the Dorset AONB and the East Devon AONB; Land instability; Dorset and East Devon World Heritage site; Lyme Regis Conservation Area and other heritage assets; Steep slopes and few areas of level ground; Its landscape setting.
Page | 75 Page 194 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 12.2 Constraints around Lyme Regis Page 195 Page
Page | 76
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
OPPORTUNITIES
12.10 The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Future growth in the Lyme Regis area will help to: Economic
Support the tourism based economy; Provide opportunities for business growth; Maintain and improve the variety of shops in the town centre; Social
Meet the need for affordable housing; Balance the local housing market by providing more homes for local people; Balance the age profile; Develop links with Uplyme in East Devon; retain and expand local facilities and services including shops, schools and doctors surgeries; Environmental Preserve the towns heritage and fossil interests; Preserve the towns setting in its landscape.
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
12.11 The topography, the Dorset AONB and East Devon AONB, land stability issues and the coast, all act together to limit opportunities for development in the Lyme Regis area. 12.12 Opportunities for delivering growth in the area have been explored with East Devon District Council and it is considered that the settlements together are only suitable for limited local growth. The Uplyme Neighbourhood Plan, currently being prepared by Uplyme Parish Council, has promoted small scale infilling within the development boundary of the village. Similarly the East Devon Villages Plan does not propose any allocations for the area. 12.13 In considering the future growth options at Lyme Regis, the councils have undertaken an initial 360 degree search of all possible development site options around the town. Unsuitable options have been discounted at an early stage through an initial site sieving exercise, with more detail in the accompanying background paper and sustainability appraisal.
Page | 77 Page 196 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 12.3: Broad areas of search – Lyme Regis
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
East of Impacts on Sidmouth to West Bay SAC, East Devon and A Charmouth Dorset World Heritage Site, the Heritage Coast, the Dorset × Road AONB. The site is also subject to coastal erosion.
Potential for development within this area avoiding impact on the Dorset AONB, on the Sidmouth to West Bay B Dragon’s Hills SAC and landscape impact. Part of area is also subject to coastal erosion.
Potential for some development in this area avoiding North West of C impacts on the Dorset AONB, landscape impacts, and Lyme Regis areas at risk of flooding.
West of Lyme Located within East Devon and therefore cannot be D × Regis allocated through this Local Plan Review.
Impacts upon Sidmouth to West Bay SAC, East Devon and E Ware Dorset World Heritage Site, the Heritage Coast, the Dorset × AONB, and is subject to coastal erosion.
12.14 The conclusion of the first high level filter of site options has left two options outlined in Figure 12.4. For each option an indicative capacity has been calculated and possible development issues identified.
Page | 78 Page 197 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 12.4 Options for growth at Lyme Regis Page 198 Page
Page | 79
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
DEVELOPMENT OPTION INDICATIVE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CAPACITY (DWELLINGS)
L1: North of Lyme Regis 60 Within Dorset AONB - Landscape impact - Highway implications - possible surface water flooding issues.
L2: Timber Vale 80 Within Dorset AONB , Landscape impact, Land instability
12.15 The table and map present two options, but there is no reason why they could not come forward in combination or as smaller parcels. 12.16 At this stage, no commitment is being made to the development of any individual or group of options. Information about the potential development options is being sought. Additional work will need to be undertaken to further refine site suitability and fully establish infrastructure and employment land requirements as well as constraints to development such as landscape or heritage impacts.
12-i. Lyme Regis has grown at an average rate of 15 dwellings per year over the last 5 years. Given the constrained nature of the Lyme Regis area, should we plan for a lower level of growth or maintain the current level of growth?
12-ii. Are there any additional issues related to the development of the site options?
12-iii. What are the infrastructure requirements for the development of the site options, individually or in combination with others?
Page | 80 Page 199 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
13. Development on Portland
TOWN PROFILE
13.1 The Isle of Portland extends about 4.5 miles into the English Channel giving it a unique coastal character. It is linked to the mainland by Chesil Beach and supports a number of distinctive settlements separated by wide open spaces, parts of which are marked by the presence of the Portland Stone quarrying industry. 13.2 ‘Portland’ is not a town as such, but a series of settlements each with their own distinct identity. The Isle of Portland has a population of over 12,800 (2011 census), with the main settlements being Castletown, Easton, Fortuneswell, Grove, Southwell and Weston. The population structure of Portland is shown in the following population pyramid: Figure 13.1: Population Pyramid – Portland
Portland England and Wales
13.3 Portland Harbour is one of the largest man-made harbours in the world. The Royal Naval base closed in 1995 and since then the area has developed as a civilian port and recreation area. In 2012 it hosted the Olympic and Paralympic sailing events. The former naval estate has provided opportunities for regeneration alongside new industrial and commercial development at Osprey Quay, Southwell Business Park and Portland Port. 13.4 Portland is at the heart of the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site and much of the island is covered by national and international environmental designations. The high quality landscape, important wildlife interests and the single carriageway road access across Chesil Beach all limit opportunities for further major development. 13.5 Although Portland is an attractive place to live with some large employment sites, some areas still suffer from high levels of multiple deprivation despite recent regeneration projects, including those to support the 2012 Olympics.
Page | 81 Page 200 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON PORTLAND
13.6 The inspector recognised that the proposals in the local plan for Portland were “modest reflecting in part the opportunities which exist for employment and housing but which have not been fully exploited”. In particular the inspector noted the mixed use redevelopment opportunities at Osprey Quay and the proposals (which have planning permission) for the redevelopment of Royal Navy accommodation at the former Hardy Complex. 13.7 The inspector considered the role and future prospects for Portland Port, but he was not convinced of the need to include a specific Port-related policy in the local plan, recognising that “a balance has to be struck between encouraging and promoting business activities and safeguarding other interests”, in particular to need to protect the environment. 13.8 The inspector felt there were too many uncertainties about timescales, funding and potential environmental impacts to justify the protection of a ‘safeguarded route’ for the A354 Weymouth to Portland Relief Road in the local plan stating that “Uncertainty over timescales runs the risk of unreasonably ‘blighting’ land and properties” and that there is not “sufficient justification for safeguarding a route at present”. 13.9 However, the Inspector supported a policy promoting Portland Quarries Nature Park, and was satisfied that the approach “reflects the Councils’ longer term aspirations” whilst also safeguarding “the interests of existing operators”.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ON PORTLAND
13.10 Environmental constraints on the Isle of Portland include:
the World Heritage Site; the Heritage Coast (from Chesil Cove along Chesil Beach); Chesil & The Fleet Special Area of Conservation (SAC); the Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC; Areas at risk of flooding; Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs); Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site (RIGS); scheduled monuments; Conservation Areas at Fortuneswell, Grove, Easton and Weston.
Page | 82 Page 201 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 13.2 Constraints around Portland Page 202 Page
Page | 83
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
OPPORTUNITIES
13.11 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. In terms of these three roles of the planning system, future growth on Portland will help to: Economic
develop specialist maritime industries and other growth sectors that benefit from this unique location; provide a good supply of well-paid jobs that benefit the local community and wider area; develop sustainable tourism based on activities that capitalise on this unique location, including water sports, climbing, walking and bird watching; maintain and expand the role of Portland Port as a port of national and international importance; and continue regeneration at Osprey Quay; Social
reduce levels of multiple deprivation; develop good education and skills provision; and see the redevelopment of the Hardy Complex for housing; Environmental
maintain and enhance the unique character of the island and its built and natural environment; and maintain and expand Portland Quarries Nature Park.
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SITES
13.12 In considering the future growth options on Portland the councils have undertaken an initial 360 degree search of all possible development site options around the main settlements. Unsuitable options have been discounted at an early stage through an initial site sieving exercise more detail in the accompanying background paper and sustainability appraisal.
Page | 84 Page 203 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 12.3 Broad areas of search - Portland
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle of South of A Portland SSSI, and scheduled monuments. Steep Castletown × topography. Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle of B New Ground Portland SSSI and nearby SNCI × Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle of C West Weare Portland SSSI and World Heritage Site. Area also × vulnerable to coastal erosion. Bowers, Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle of D / E Inmosthay and Portland SSSI and Portland (Easton) conservation area. / F Independent Areas either working quarries or part of Portland × Quarries Quarries Nature Park. West of Weston Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle of G / H / Barleycrates Portland SSSI and World Heritage Site. Area in part × Lane vulnerable to coastal erosion. Weston Road to Potential for development along Weston Road avoiding I Perryfields impacts on Isle of Portland SSSI, nearby SNCI and Quarries Weston conservation area. Between Easton Impacts on Isle of Portland SSSI and nearby SNCI J & Grove ×
Page | 85 Page 204 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle K Reap Lane of Portland SSSI and World Heritage Site. Area in part × vulnerable to coastal erosion. East of Potential for development associated with built up area L Avalanche Road of Southwell. South of Sweet Potential for development associated with built up area M Hill Road of Southwell, avoiding impacts on nearby SNCI. Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC Isle of Freshwater N Portland SSSI, World Heritage Site and nearby SNCI. Quarries × Area in part vulnerable to coastal erosion.
13.13 The conclusion of the first high level filter of site options is that there are no significant opportunities around the settlements of Castletown, Easton, Fortuneswell and Grove, largely due to the combination of different environmental constraints. 13.14 Three options outlined in Figure 12.4 have been identified for further consideration. For each option an indicative capacity has been calculated and possible development issues identified.
Page | 86 Page 205 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 12.4 Options for growth at Portland Page 206 Page
Page | 87
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
DEVELOPMENT OPTION INDICATIVE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CAPACITY (DWELLINGS)
P1: Eastern end of 50 Possible impact on SAC, SSSI and SNCI , World Heritage Weston Street Site, Portland Coastline, scheduled monument and conservation area.
P2: North of Southwell 100 Landscape impact
P3: South of Southwell 130 Landscape impact - impact on Portland Coastline, SNCI and scheduled monument
13.15 Although the table and map present three option sites that could be developed individually there is no reason why they could not come forward in combination or as smaller parcels. 13.16 At this stage, no commitment is being made to the development of any individual or group of options. Information about the potential development options is being sought. Additional work will need to be undertaken to further refine site suitability and fully establish infrastructure and employment land requirements as well as constraints to development such as landscape or heritage impacts.
13-i. Development on Portland has taken place at an average rate of 45 dwellings per year over the last 5 years. Given the constrained nature of Portland and the need to address social and economic issues, should we plan for a lower level of growth or maintain the current level of growth?
13-ii. Are there any additional issues related to the development of any of the site options?
13-iii. What are the infrastructure requirements for the development of the site options, individually or in combination with others?
Page | 88 Page 207 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
14. Development at Yeovil
TOWN PROFILE
14.1 Yeovil is located within South Somerset District on the northern boundary of West Dorset. The town is approximately 6 miles west of Sherborne and surrounded by a large rural hinterland of smaller market towns and villages. The town has a population of around 30,4007. It is connected to Sherborne by the A30 and Dorchester by the A37, with the A303 just to the north. The town has two railway stations with Yeovil Pen Mill connecting to Weymouth and Dorchester to the South and Bristol and Yeovil Junction connecting to London (Waterloo) and Exeter. 14.2 Yeovil plays a significant economic role in Somerset with nearly half of the jobs in South Somerset district located in the town. Yeovil has a relatively high proportion of manufacturing jobs with a high proportion in the defence and aerospace sectors. 14.3 Although Yeovil is a relatively large town, it sits in an attractive rural setting, within a sensitive landscape defined by escarpments to both the north and south. The River Yeo flood plain along the eastern edge of the town is also a defining feature.
INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS ON DUTY TO COOPERATE
14.4 The local plan inspector highlighted three specific locations where cross boundary planning considerations were necessary including the Yeovil area. He noted that options had been explored during the early stages of the production of the South Somerset Local Plan but had not been pursued. 14.5 The inspector stated that “it is not unreasonable to suggest that peripheral areas of West Dorset could offer opportunities for more effective plan-making if administrative boundaries were ignored because there is potential overlap with Housing Market Areas in adjacent authorities.” It is therefore considered appropriate to consider development options within West Dorset but adjacent to the Yeovil urban area.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AROUND THE TOWN
14.6 Close to the West Dorset boundary, Yeovil is constrained by:
the river Yeo floodplain; Registered Park and Gardens of Barwick Park & Newton Surmaville; Landscape sensitivity; High grade agricultural land; Scheduled ancient monuments.
7 2011 Census
Page | 89 Page 208 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 14.1: Constraints around Yeovil Page 209 Page
Page | 90
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
OPPORTUNITIES
14.7 Future growth at Yeovil will help:
To maintain Yeovil as the focus for growth in the South Somerset economy; To meet housing need identified in the Yeovil housing market; To support a vibrant retail, leisure and service base for the town and wider area; To ensure that Yeovil delivers its growth in a way that is as sustainable as possible to reduce the need for reliance on car movements, the main cause of poor air quality; Deliver development in a sustainable location.
POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SITES
14.8 Yeovil has been identified by South Somerset as a focus for growth and an important sub- regional centre offering a wide range of services and shopping facilities not available elsewhere. It is a focal point for industry with a large number of people commuting into the town for work. Yeovil is adjacent to the district boundary and has strong commuting links with Sherborne. Development in the Yeovil area is a sustainable option for meeting growth needs of this part of the district as well as for meeting the need arising from the town itself. 14.9 Land to the east of Yeovil (in West Dorset) is located near to the existing built up area of the town and has previously been considered as an option for future growth in the production of the South Somerset Local Plan as part of their 360 degree search for sites. Although this direction for growth was discounted, both Councils are now embarking upon reviews of their respective Local Plans and the opportunity arises to reappraise future development opportunities. 14.10 South Somerset District Council is reviewing its Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), a document that considers future housing need. In the event that future large scale housing need is identified in the Yeovil area, a growth option in West Dorset would need to be considered.
Page | 91 Page 210 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 14.2: Broad areas of search – Yeovil
AREA NAME POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION
Land west of Separated from urban area of Yeovil by railway line and A × Over Compton River Yeo with no obvious crossing point.
Potential for some development between area at risk of Land north of B flooding and steep ground of Babylon Hill. Development A30 within landscape constraints.
Land south of Potential impact on SSSI. Steep and wooded and currently C × A30 in use as a golf course.
14.11 The conclusion of the first high level filter of site options has identified a single option as outlined in Figure 14.3. For this option, an indicative capacity has been calculated and possible development issues have been identified.
Page | 92 Page 211 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 14.3 Options for growth at Yeovil Page 212 Page
Page | 93
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS INDICATIVE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CAPACITY (DWELLINGS)
Y1: East of Yeovil 425 Flood risk - Landscape impact - Steep topography - Impact on SSSI
14.12 At this stage, no commitment is being made to the development of this option; information about the options is being sought. Additional work will need to be undertaken to refine its suitability and fully establish infrastructure and employment land requirements as well as constraints to development such as landscape or heritage impacts.
14-i. Is it appropriate to develop adjacent to the urban area of Yeovil but within West Dorset?
14-ii. Are there any additional issues related to the development of the site option?
14-iii. What are the infrastructure requirements for the development of the site option?
Page | 94 Page 213 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
15. Affordable Housing
INTRODUCTION
15.1 The need for affordable housing is a key issue for the area and for the local plan. Delivery of affordable housing through the planning system is a well established principle with national planning policy requiring local planning authorities to meet housing and affordable housing needs.
CURRENT APPROACH
POLICY HOUS 1 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING
15.2 The provision of affordable housing on sites where open market housing is proposed is dealt with by Policy HOUS1 in the current local plan. The policy:
Seeks a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing on all market housing sites (i.e. establishes a ‘zero threshold’); Establishes the ‘percentage targets’ that should be provided as affordable housing on market housing sites, which are 25% in Portland and 35% in Weymouth and West Dorset; and Seeks a mix of 70% (minimum) social / affordable rent and 30% (maximum) intermediate affordable housing, unless local needs justify a different mix. POLICY HOUS 2 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXCEPTION SITES
15.3 The provision of affordable housing exception sites is dealt with by Policy HOUS2 in the current local plan. This allows for small scale sites for affordable housing adjoining settlements:
that meet current local needs; and have secure arrangements to ensure that the benefits of the affordable housing will be enjoyed by subsequent as well as initial occupiers. 15.4 The supporting text highlights that future occupancy will be prioritised for local people and also explains that market housing cross-subsidy on exception sites will not be permitted.
REASON FOR CHANGE
15.5 The councils are already applying recent changes to national planning policy to support small-scale developers, custom and self-builders. The councils no longer require affordable housing contributions on small development sites, and have reduced the contributions requested where a vacant building is brought back into use or demolished and replaced by a new building (known as ‘vacant building credit’). 15.6 The Government is making more fundamental changes, seeking to shift the emphasis from the provision of affordable housing to rent to affordable housing to buy, principally through the provision of ‘starter homes’. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the Act) provides the legislative basis for these changes, which will also be reflected in revised
Page | 95 Page 214 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
national policy. At the current time, the detail of the Act has not been implemented and revised national planning policy in relation to ‘starter homes’ is yet to be produced, so some of the details are not yet clear. 15.7 These changes have major implications for the affordable housing policies in the Local Plan, even though it was adopted very recently, in October 2015.
PROPOSED APPROACH
15.8 Key issues relating to different aspects of policies HOUS1 and HOUS2 are discussed below. THE OPTIONAL THRESHOLD OF 5 UNITS IN ‘RURAL AREAS’
15.9 Under national policy, affordable housing contributions are not required on residential sites of 10 units or fewer, or where the maximum combined gross floor space is 1,000 square metres or less. National policy also allows councils to choose to apply a lower, 5- unit threshold in designated rural areas as shown in Figure 15.1 (referred to as ‘rural areas’), with the aim of providing a balance between boosting housing supply on small sites and maintaining the flow of affordable housing. Figure 15.1: Designated Rural Areas8
15.10 Designated ‘rural areas’ include National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and any ‘area designated by order of the Secretary of State as a rural area’. Much of West Dorset district and small parts of Weymouth and Portland borough lie within the
8 Rural areas as set out in S157(1) of the Housing Act 1985
Page | 96 Page 215 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Dorset AONB and the whole of West Dorset district, with the exception of the parishes of Chickerell, Dorchester and Sherborne has also been designated as a ‘rural area’ by the Secretary of State. 15.11 The councils are currently applying (on an interim basis) the lower 5-unit threshold to relevant planning applications for housing in those areas where it could apply. In summary these are:
West Dorset District (excluding the parish of Sherborne and those parts of the parishes of Chickerell and Dorchester that lie within the Dorset AONB); and Those parts of Weymouth and Portland Borough within the Dorset AONB (around Upwey, Preston and Sutton Poyntz). 15.12 Policy HOUS1 will be revised to apply the national 10-unit threshold outside ‘rural areas’ and to make provision for the offering of vacant building credit. Views are sought on whether policy HOUS1 should also be revised to include the optional national 5-unit threshold, which would be applied to the areas described above rather than the national 10-unit threshold. 15.13 National policy makes it clear that in areas where a council chooses to apply the 5-unit threshold, it must also allow developments of 6 to 10 units to provide affordable housing contributions in cash, deferred until after completion, rather than in the form of units on site. In the event that Policy HOUS1 was revised to apply the 5-unit threshold in ‘rural areas’, the policy would also be revised to include this provision from national policy.
15-i. Should Policy HOUS1 be revised to apply the optional lower threshold in national policy and guidance within ‘rural areas’ as shown in Figure 15.1 (rather than the national 10-unit threshold), so that affordable housing contributions would not be sought on sites of 5 units or less in these areas?
MEETING THE NEED FOR OTHER FORMS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALONGSIDE ‘STARTER HOMES’
15.14 A ‘starter home’ is a new home available for purchase by first-time buyers under the age of 40, which is made available at 20% (or more) below market value and with a ‘price cap’ (outside London) of £250,000. The Government also intends to widen the definition of affordable housing in national policy to include starter homes. 15.15 The Government has suggested a single national minimum requirement of 20% of all homes to be delivered as starter homes as part of any residential development of 10 units or more. 15.16 Policy HOUS1 sets out the ‘percentage targets’ that should be provided as affordable housing on market housing sites, which are 25% in Portland and 35% in Weymouth and West Dorset. These targets have been established in a recently adopted local plan and it is not proposed to revise them. However, it is understood that the approach local authorities should take is to make the starter home requirement part of the relevant percentage target for an area.
Page | 97 Page 216 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
15.17 In the event that the Government decides to require that 20% of all homes on sites of 10 units or more must be provided as starter homes, this would mean that on relevant sites the councils would seek:
In Portland: 20% starter homes; 5% other forms of affordable housing; and 75% market housing; and In Weymouth and West Dorset: 20% starter homes; 15% other forms of affordable housing; and 65% market housing. 15.18 This raises the issue of what ‘other forms of affordable housing’ should be sought alongside the provision of starter homes. At present, without any requirement to provide starter homes, policy HOUS1 seeks a minimum of 70% social / affordable rented and a maximum of 30% intermediate affordable housing (unless local needs indicate that alternative provision would be more appropriate on a particular site). 15.19 The evidence behind the tenure mix currently sought indicates a greater need for social / affordable rent and it may be appropriate to prioritise the provision of these types of affordable housing alongside the provision of starter homes. However, since starter homes are only available to those under the age of 40, older people may also have some need for affordable housing to buy or part buy (for example, under a shared equity arrangement).
15-ii. In the light of the expected statutory requirement to provide a proportion of starter homes on all reasonably sized housing sites, should the focus for the provision of other types of affordable housing be primarily on: affordable housing to rent; or affordable housing to buy or part-buy (for example, under a shared equity arrangement)?
MARKET HOUSING ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXCEPTION SITES
15.20 The local plan rejects the idea of allowing market housing to cross-subsidise affordable housing on exception sites. There were concerns that this approach would reduce the likelihood of 100% affordable housing sites being delivered and could result in significant unplanned growth adjoining settlements. 15.21 At the time the local plan was produced, grant funding for exception sites was more readily available, but this has declined in recent years. Some financial contributions towards affordable housing will be achieved from developers of sites between 6 and 10 dwellings in ‘rural areas’, but such contributions may be limited especially in Weymouth and Portland, where only a small part of the borough lies within the Dorset AONB and there is no ‘designated rural area’. 15.22 In the light of these changing circumstances, the issue of allowing market homes to cross- subsidise affordable housing on exception sites needs to be reconsidered. It is envisaged an approach would only be allowed exceptionally in the event that: a 100% affordable scheme would not be viable; and a 100% affordable scheme could not be made viable through grant-funding and / or financial contributions from elsewhere. It is envisaged that
Page | 98 Page 217 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
the amount of market housing permitted on an exception site should be the minimum necessary to make the scheme viable.
15-iii. Should Policy HOUS2 allow market homes to cross-subsidise the provision of affordable housing on exception sites?
15-iv. How should be provision of market homes on such sites be controlled to ensure that the emphasis remains on meeting local affordable housing needs and significant unplanned growth adjoining settlements is avoided?
Page | 99 Page 218 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
16. Self Build Housing
INTRODUCTION
16.1 National policy indicates that local planning authorities should plan for the needs of different groups in the community such as “people wishing to build their own homes”. In simple terms, we define self-build as projects where an individual directly organises the design and construction of their new home. Custom build homes tend to be those where an individual works with a specialist developer to help deliver their own home.
CURRENT APPROACH
16.2 The adopted local plan does not contain a specific policy on self-build and custom housebuilding however mechanisms exist which could deliver self build housing.
Self build schemes would be, in principle, acceptable within defined development boundaries (DDBs) or anywhere else where open market housing is allowed. The subdivision of an existing home may be appropriate outside DDBs, particularly if the home has formerly been two or more dwellings. The replacement of an existing lawful dwelling outside a DDB may be permitted on a one for one basis. Outside DDBs if schemes meet the definition of ‘affordable’ then there is the possibility of the exception site policy catering for these types of homes. In addition, permission may be granted where schemes meet the criteria for rural workers’ dwellings. Neighbourhood development plans could make provision for self-build and custom build homes in locations where the local plan policy does not allow them.
REASON FOR CHANGE
16.3 Local authorities are required to keep a register of individuals and associations who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in the authority’s area for self build and custom build house building (referred to as the Self-build Register). Local authorities have a duty to have regard to the register that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. 16.4 A second duty is placed on local authorities to grant permissions on serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in their area as evidenced by the number of people on the Self-build Register. 16.5 The West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Self-build Registers were launched on 1 April 2016. As at 13 October 2016 there are 53 individuals registered in the West Dorset Area and 27 individuals registered in the Weymouth & Portland area. 16.6 In order to help deliver infrastructure to support development, the councils collect money through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Government however is keen to encourage the further supply of serviced plots of land by offering an exemption to self build and custom build housing from CIL.
Page | 100 Page 219 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
PROPOSED APPROACH
16.7 There are a number of different mechanisms in which the councils could promote the provision of serviced plots of land for self build and custom building in order to meet the need evidenced by the Self-build Register. In summary they are:
The current approach – continue to rely on self build & custom housebuilding plots coming forward through existing planning policy Through land allocations – allocate suitable land for registered custom builders through either land acquisition or council land disposal As part of the housing mix – seek a proportion of residential sites to be set aside for self build and custom housebuilding either through site by site negotiation or as a fixed percentage on all sites over a certain site size As exception sites – encourage suitable self build schemes from local individuals in housing need 16.8 These mechanisms are discussed in more detail below. CURRENT APPROACH
16.9 Locally, self build housing is already supported through Policy SUS2 which allows for infill development within existing DDBs. Outside of DDBs, self build plots can also come forward in certain situations as either replacement dwellings or sub-division of properties in the countryside. Exceptions to usual planning policy also apply to affordable housing exception sites and rural workers dwellings. The introduction of neighbourhood planning offers a further route for the delivery of plots in a specific locality 16.10 As detail of the requirement to provide serviced self-build plots is not yet available and the Self-build Register is in its infancy, it is not clear whether sufficient serviced plots would be delivered through this mechanism. There are however 184 permissions for single dwellings within the plan area. LAND ALLOCATION
16.11 In addition to the current approach the councils could consider identifying either publicly owned or privately submitted sites to meet the need for self-build and custom house building plots. The intention would be to allocate new specific areas to offer to registered self build and custom housebuilders. This approach has the benefit of increasing the supply of sites in identified locations of need, though there is some uncertainty regarding how desirable it is for land owners to offer sites and service the plots. HOUSING MIX
16.12 An alternative approach could be to introduce a new housing mix policy to allow for self build to be considered as part of the housing mix for on site negotiations. A proportion of self-build plots could then be sought on all open market development sites where there is an identified need, as evidenced by the Self- Build register. The number and size of plots to be provided would depend on the level of need.
Page | 101 Page 220 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
16.13 Alternatively, a percentage policy could be used to require a proportion of allocated or windfall sites over a certain size to make provision for self-build and custom housebuilding, usually in the form of serviced plots. 16.14 The policy approach (whether through percentage or housing mix) could be an effective approach for delivering a range of suitable plots of land across the Plan area. EXCEPTION SITES
16.15 Although custom build is generally considered to be a form of market housing, it also has a track record of delivering dwellings at a lower cost. Adapting Policy HOUS2 on affordable housing exception sites to support suitable self build schemes from individuals in housing need could help to provide serviced plots enabling those housing need to build or commission houses that are specially tailored to meet their specific requirements. 16.16 This approach could see small parcels of land outside but adjoining settlements with being made available for self build schemes as an exception to planning policy. Self-build and custom build plots would be sold with the benefit of outline planning permission, and with access and services supplied to the plot boundary. 16.17 Qualifying applicants would need to be in housing need and unable to access a suitable home currently available on the open market in the local area. The future re-sale value of the affordable home would be fixed in perpetuity below open market value to ensure that it remains affordable for subsequent occupiers.
16-i. Should serviced self build plots be delivered to meet the demand identified on the local Self-build Register through: Current approach; Land allocation; Housing mix; Exception site; or A mixture of the above
16-ii. Is there an alternative mechanism that can be used to meet the demand for self build and custom housebuilding?
Page | 102 Page 221 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
17. Level of Growth – Employment land
INTRODUCTION
17.1 Establishing the level of growth and the future need for employment land is an important part of the planning process. It ensures that social and economic needs are met, contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
CURRENT APPROACH
17.2 National planning policy indicates that there should be sufficient land of the right type available in the right places and at the right time to support economic growth and innovation. POLICY SUS1 – LEVEL OF ECONOMIC AND HOUSING GROWTH
17.3 Policy SUS1 sets out the level of economic and housing growth that should be delivered in West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland in the period from 2011 to 2031. 17.4 Economic forecasts prepared to inform the local plan production suggested that around 13,000 additional jobs could be generated in the period up to 2031, which the additional housing also to be provided, would help to support. The plan indicates that 60.3 hectares of employment land should be provided to accommodate some of these jobs. 17.5 The adopted local plan (Table 3.2) shows that the total supply of employment land between 2011 and 2031 is 85.5 hectares, which significantly exceeds the forecast requirements and also allows for likely vacancies, churn and a degree of market choice.
REASON FOR CHANGE
17.6 There are a number of reasons why the level of economic and housing growth needs to be re-examined in the local plan review. In summary, for employment land they are:
The growth agenda being promoted through the Western Dorset Growth Area; The revised assessment of predicted growth levels and the need for employment land, as set out in a revised workspace strategy; and 17.7 These reasons are discussed in more detail below. THE WESTERN DORSET GROWTH AREA INITIATIVE
17.8 The Dorset Councils Partnership takes a co-ordinated approach to economic development and regeneration across North Dorset, West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland, which is promoted as the Western Dorset Growth Area (WDGA). This approach identifies common themes across the area, gives a better understanding of the links between economic development and regeneration proposals and helps to co-ordinate support for discrete projects. 17.9 The emerging strategic economic plan and shared vision identifies Dorchester, Weymouth and Portland as the ‘core area’ for growth and defines the main coastal and market towns (including Bridport, Sherborne and Lyme Regis) as Rural Dorset Growth Towns.
Page | 103 Page 222 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
17.10 The local plan review’s strategic approach of meeting the OAN for housing and employment land will support the WDGA’s growth agenda. However, this will need to be kept under review as the WDGA’s strategic economic plan emerges and further economic development and regeneration projects are identified. THE REVISED WORKSPACE STRATEGY AND THE FUTURE NEED FOR EMPLOYMENT LAND
17.11 A revised workspace strategy was produced in 2016 taking account of recent changes in the economic context. The revised strategy looked at current business sector forecasts and reassessed the future need for employment land with a view to enabling a ‘step change’ in growth to be accommodated and providing considerable flexibility to businesses in terms of the availability of sites. 17.12 Making provision for a further five years and taking account of the revised assessment, the ‘step change plus 20% flexibility’ scenario indicates a need for between 62 and 65 hectares of employment land for the period from 2013 to 2036. This is slightly above the need identified in the plan of 60.3 hectares for the period 2011 to 2031 but still below the identified supply of employment land.
PROPOSED APPROACH
17.13 Key issues relating to proposed levels of employment land and the proposed approaches to addresses these issues are discussed below. THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAND TO 2036
17.14 The ‘step change’ scenario in the revised workspace strategy plans for an increase in Gross Value Added (GVA) of 2.4% per annum across the whole of Dorset. This compares with a national trend forecast of about 2.0% GVA annually. 17.15 The ‘step change’ scenario would see growth in total employment of about 15,100 jobs across the local plan area between 2013 and 2033 representing an increase of about 0.9% per annum. As a comparison, the adopted local plan predicts growth of 13,070 jobs between 2011 and 2031 in the local plan area, which represents an increase of 0.83% per annum. 17.16 The updated requirement for employment land for the period 2013 to 2036 based on the ‘step change’ scenario is for between 62 and 65 hectares. This updated requirement is broadly equivalent, but slightly higher, than the figure of 60.3 hectares in the adopted local plan. The identified supply of employment land still significantly exceeds the projected demand and on that basis there is no intention to allocate any additional employment land as part of the local plan review to meet the overall need for employment land to 2036. Provision of employment land as part of any larger development sites may however be sought in order to provide a balance of land uses.
17-i. Do the figures in the revised workspace strategy provide an objective assessment of the overall need for employment land in the local plan area, especially in the light of national and local aspirations for economic growth?
Page | 104 Page 223 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
17-ii. Do you agree with the assessment that there is no need to allocate any additional employment land in the local plan area in order to meet overall employment needs in West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland in the period up to 2036?
17.17 Although the overall identified supply of employment land significantly exceeds the forecast need, the councils would welcome views on whether there are needs for further employment land to be identified at any specific towns (or other locations) in the local plan area, in order to ensure a range and choice of sites more locally and / or to encourage more self-contained communities.
17-iii. Is there a need at any of the towns (or other locations) in the local plan area for additional employment land to be allocated in order to meet particular local employment needs or encourage greater self containment?
Page | 105 Page 224 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
18. Protection of Employment Sites
INTRODUCTION
18.1 Existing employment sites and premises provide valuable opportunities for jobs close to where people live, and benefit the local economy. However there is increasing pressure for change of use from employment to non-employment generating uses. The loss of employment uses can negatively impact on the local economy.
CURRENT APPROACH
18.2 The protection of existing employment sites is dealt with by policies ECON2 and ECON3 in the current local plan. POLICY ECON2 PROTECTION OF KEY EMPLOYMENT SITES
18.3 Policy ECON2 seeks to identify and safeguard “key employment sites”. These sites are the larger employment sites that make a significant contribution to the employment land supply. The policy:
Protects key sites for B class uses (light industrial, general industrial, storage and distribution) Permits other employment uses which would enhance the local economy for example through higher wage rate, skill levels, job numbers or contribute to the achievement of aims and objectives identified by the Local Economic Partnership Permits other employment uses that provide on-site support to other businesses though it generally does not permit retail development 18.4 While the policy does not allow uses that do not provide direct, on-going local employment opportunities (like residential development) the supporting text highlights that where there are recognised viability issues preventing the delivery of sites the councils will work with developers to understand and seek to address potential barriers. POLICY ECON3 PROTECTION OF OTHER EMPLOYMENT SITES
18.5 Policy ECON3 seeks to safeguard other (non-key) employment sites but takes a more flexible approach to help facilitate a broader range of development. In addition to allowing economic uses the policy permits non-employment uses (including residential development) where:
employment uses are resulting in harm to the character or amenity of the area there is an over-supply of suitable alternative employment sites redevelopment would not result in a significant loss of jobs redevelopment offers important community benefits 18.6 The redevelopment for non-employment uses is only permitted where it would not prejudice the effective and efficient use of the remainder of the employment area for employment uses.
Page | 106 Page 225 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
REASON FOR CHANGE
18.7 National policy states that “planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose”. It also requires that “land allocations should be regularly reviewed”. 18.8 Applications for alternative uses for land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities. 18.9 We consider the local plan’s general approach to the protection of employment sites will ensure a variety of locations continue to be available for a mix of employment uses in the future. The approach will also allow for the efficient use of land by permitting appropriate alternative uses on those sites considered to make a less important contribution to the employment land supply or which are no longer fit for purpose. 18.10 However, the review of the local plan provides an opportunity to examine our approach and evaluate the selection of “key employment sites” to ensure it is appropriate and consistent with national policy.
PROPOSED APPROACH
18.11 Sites identified as “key employment sites” will continue to be protected for B class uses and other employment uses that enhance the local economy (as set out in policy ECON2). Figure 18.1: Key Employment Sites
TOWN SITE
Weymouth Littlemoor urban extension Mount Pleasant Portland Portland Port Southwell Business Park Inmosthay Industrial Estate Tradecroft Industrial Estate Chickerell Granby Industrial Estate Lynch Lane Industrial Estate Link Park Dorchester Poundbury Parkway Farm Business Park Marabout & The Grove Industrial Estate Poundbury West Industrial Estate Loudsmill Great Western Industrial Estate Railway Triangle
Page | 107 Page 226 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
TOWN SITE
Casterbridge Crossways Land at Crossways Hybris Business Park Bridport Vearse Farm North Mills Trading Estate Amsafe Dreadnought Trading Estate St Andrews Trading Estate Crepe Farm Gore Cross Pymore Mills Beaminster Broadwindsor Road Horn Park Quarry Danisco Site Lane End Farm Lyme Regis Lyme Regis Industrial Estate / Uplyme Business Park Sherborne Barton Farm Hunts Depot Coldharbour Business Park South Western Business Park Broadmayne Roman Hill Business Park Charminster Charminster Farm Piddlehinton Enterprise Park
18.12 The sites in Figure 18.1 have been selected as “key” on the basis of the contribution (existing or potential) that they make to the employment land supply in the plan area. They are strictly protected to help ensure their ongoing contribution to the local economy. 18.13 However, the selection of a site as “key” and the controls that that designation places on the types of uses considered appropriate in those locations could, in some limited circumstances, constrain the ability to respond to local economic needs and impact on their future viability. This could particularly be a concern for sites occupied by only one firm. It is important that only those sites performing a very important role in the local economy are identified as “key”, thereby justifying this extra level of protection. 18.14 A reduction in the number of sites identified as “key” could improve the focus and application of the policy. Sites deselected from the “key employment sites” designation
Page | 108 Page 227 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
would no longer be protected by Policy ECON2. Instead, development on these sites would be considered against the criteria in Policy ECON3. 18.15 As outlined, Policy ECON3 on employment sites not identified as “key” there will continue to be a more flexible approach, where in certain circumstances non-employment uses including residential development would be considered. 18.16 Although not identified as “key”, other employment sites provide valuable job opportunities and contribute to the overall mix of employment land available. The loss of these sites to non-employment uses could negatively impact on the local economy, resulting in a shortfall of available sites and limiting local access to employment. 18.17 The approach to development on other (non-key) sites will need to continue to strike a balance between ensuring that viable employment sites contributing to the local economy are protected, whilst being flexible enough to enable sites with no reasonable prospect of employment development being developed or alternative uses.
18-i. Are there “key employment sites” listed in figure 18.1 that should no longer be given the higher level of protection afforded to “key employment sites”? Please tell us which ones and why.
Page | 109 Page 228 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
19. Retail and Town Centres
INTRODUCTION
19.1 Main town centre uses include retail development; leisure & entertainment facilities, the more intensive sport and recreation uses (such as a cinemas); offices; and arts, culture and tourism developments. 19.2 The NPPF sets out two tests that should be applied when considering town centre uses, the sequential test and the impact test.
The sequential test requires applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres as first preference, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites then be considered. The sequential approach does not apply to applications for small scale rural development, community facilities or employment trade related uses on employment sites. The impact test determines whether there would be any likely significant adverse impacts of locating main town centre development outside existing town centres. In the local plan, an impact test is required for all proposals above a 1000m2 floorspace threshold.
CURRENT APPROACH
19.3 National policy states that in drawing up their Local Plans, local planning authorities should “define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes”. 19.4 The glossary to the NPPF clarifies that “References to town centres or centres apply to city centres, town centres, district centres and local centres but exclude small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance.” Although the Glossary of terms list the hierarchy of town and local centres a definition is not provided with the intention that this is locally defined. 19.5 Weymouth, Dorchester, Bridport, Sherborne and Lyme Regis town centres are defined through Policy ECON4. These centres are defined on the local plan policies map. The Local Plan also recognises that more local centres exist in the smaller towns and neighbourhood areas, relative to the size of the area they serve. The Local Plan list examples such as Easton, Fortuneswell and Beaminster that have an important role in meeting local need.
REASON FOR CHANGE
19.6 The glossary to the NPPF states that “Town centres are areas identified on the proposals map” suggesting that centres that are not identifies on the proposals map can not therefore be considered as “centres”. 19.7 The role, function and hierarchy of the town and local centres have not however been comprehensively defined, and local centres are not shown on the policies map. Applications that may affect local centres are considered on a case by case basis.
Page | 110 Page 229 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
19.8 To provide a standard basis on which to determine planning applications for retail uses, it is proposed that the Local Plan Review outlines a definition of centres within a hierarchy which can be applied locally before defining the extent of the centres.
PROPOSED APPROACH
19.9 Figure 19.1 includes a definition of town and local centre and suggests which centres fit within each category. The intention will be to apply the final definitions across the plan area to identify which centres fit within each category and therefore enable the extents of the centres to be defined on the local plan policies map. Figure 19.1: Hierarchy of the town and local centres
CATEGORY DEFINITION LOCAL HIERARCHY
City City centres are the highest level of centre There are no city centres in the Centres identified in development plans. In terms of plan area. hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment.
Town Town centres are the principle centres within an Town centres have been defined at centres area. In rural areas they can often be found Weymouth, Dorchester, Bridport, within market or costal towns. They function as Sherborne and Lyme Regis. important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas.
District District centres will usually comprise groups of A District Centre is under Centres shops often containing at least one supermarket construction at Queen Mothers or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, Square, Poundbury. such as banks and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local Local centres include a range of small shops of a Larger local centres in the plan Centres local nature, serving a small catchment. area include: Typically, local centres might include, amongst Weymouth & Portland other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, Easton Square and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a Portland Road, Wyke Regis hot-food takeaway, hairdressers and launderette. Littlemoor Centre In rural areas, large villages may perform the role Fortuneswell of a local centre. Abbotsbury Road, Westham Lodmoor Hill Southill Centre West Dorset Beaminster Chickerell West Bay
Page | 111 Page 230 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
CATEGORY DEFINITION LOCAL HIERARCHY
Small Small parades of shops are largely defined by Small parades of shops of purely parades of how people use them and their relation to other neighbourhood significance are not shops centres. regarded as centres. They have a mainly local customer base, with There is no intention to identify strong local links and local visibility, have a high “small parades of shops” within the number of independent small or micro- local plan. businesses with some multiples and symbol affiliates; and have a mixture of retail based shops (convenience stores, newsagents, greengrocers etc) and some local service businesses (hairdressers, café etc).
19.10 The councils are commissioning a retail study to examine the need for additional retail floorspace and the potential to accommodate future retail growth in and around the town centres. Town centre boundaries already identified on the local plan policies map, would be reviewed as a result of the retail study with a view to meeting the need for town centre uses in the most appropriate location.
19-i. Are there any other factors in defining a retail hierarchy that the councils should consider?
19-ii. Using the draft definition of local and town centres, do you agree with the centres named under each category?
Page | 112 Page 231 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
20. Green Infrastructure
INTRODUCTION
20.1 Green Infrastructure is defined in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) as a “network of multifunctional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities” 20.2 The multiple and far reaching benefits of a green infrastructure network are set out in national policy. These benefits include:
Provision of opportunities for recreation, social interaction and play; Driving economic growth through the creation of high quality environments; The potential to improve public health and community wellbeing by enhancing the quality of the environment and providing opportunities for sport Impacting on the delivery of ecosystem services and ecological networks Mitigating the risks associated with climate change by managing flooding and water resources, plus helping species adapt to climate change by facilitating opportunities for movement Reinforcing local landscape character, adding to a sense of place. 20.3 Green Infrastructure is therefore a key consideration within local plans and planning decisions.
CURRENT APPROACH
POLICY ENV3 – GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK
20.4 Policy ENV3 states that the councils will work together with local communities and other relevant partners to develop a green infrastructure strategy for the plan area. 20.5 For the interim period prior to the development of this strategy, the Local Plan defines green infrastructure as:
Areas / Land of Local Landscape Importance (as identified in the previously adopted local plans); Portland Coastline (as identified in the previously adopted local plan for Weymouth and Portland); Important Open Gaps (as identified in the previously adopted local plan for Weymouth and Portland); Historically important spaces (as identified in adopted Conservation Area Appraisals); Sites of Nature Conservation Interest, Local Nature Reserves and Ancient Woodlands, Lorton Valley and Portland Quarries nature parks. 20.6 In addition, there is a number of national and international designations (including SSSI, NNR, SAC, SPA and Ramsar) which are important for the protection of habitats and biodiversity. These designations also form an important part of the Green Infrastructure Network. Page | 113 Page 232 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
20.7 Policy ENV3 states that “proposals that promote geodiversity and biodiversity within this network of spaces and provide improved access and recreational use (where appropriate) should be supported.” Conversely “Development that would cause harm to the green infrastructure network or undermine the reasons for an area’s inclusion within the network will not be permitted unless clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
REASON FOR CHANGE
20.8 The NPPF states that planning should “take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it” 20.9 Having a plan-wide framework for West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland will assist in planning positively for green infrastructure giving a greater likelihood of achieving the multiple benefits associated with green infrastructure provision. 20.10 Policy ENV3 is an interim policy pending the intended development of a separate Green Infrastructure Strategy. It affords protection to various environmental designations identified through previous local plans prior to their assessment for potential inclusion within a Green Infrastructure network. The local plan review however provides the opportunity to alter this approach and define a green infrastructure network through this process. 20.11 It is not possible to define a network until a system for categorising different types of green spaces has been established. Once established, green spaces identified through the previous designations will be reassessed to determine whether they should continue to be included in the GI network. New sites may also be included if they fall into any of the definitions.
PROPOSED APPROACH
20.12 In order to define the Green Infrastructure network a series of categories need to be established to identify different elements and their function and benefit within the network. Given the multifunctional nature of the network areas may be included in more than one category. 20.13 Some of the areas included within designations may not be publicly accessible due to their environmental sensitivity, particularly if they are included within an international or national designation. These areas are also protected by other policies within the local plan. 20.14 It is proposed to adopt the categories for the types and functions of Green Infrastructure shown in Figure 20.1.
Page | 114 Page 233 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Figure 20.1: Types and functions of green infrastructure
TYPE EXAMPLES PRIMARY FUNCTION
Outdoor recreation Sports pitches and greens, Offer opportunities for sports, play facilities, parks and playgrounds, urban parks, and recreation and to enable easy gardens country parks, formal gardens. access to the countryside (for example Bridport Leisure Centre, Redlands Sports Hub, Dorchester’s Borough Gardens)
Amenity greenspace Informal recreation spaces, Creating attractive and pleasant built housing green spaces, environments, providing community landscape planting, village and private outdoor leisure space (for greens, urban commons, other example ‘Green’ off Sprague Close, incidental space Weymouth)
Natural and semi- Nature reserves, woodland and Creating areas for biodiversity, natural green / blue scrub, grassland, heathlands, geodiversity, access to education spaces wetlands, ponds, open and associated with the natural running water, landscape environment (for example Radipole planting Lake, Jellyfields Nature Reserve, Portland Quarries Nature Park)
Green corridors Rivers including their banks and Creating a sustainable travel network floodplains, trees & hedgerows, promoting walking and cycling, dry stone walls, road and rail enhancements to semi natural corridors, cycling routes, habitats and integrating micro green pedestrian paths, rights of way, infrastructure into urban areas (for Coast example Rodwell Trail, English Coastal path, River Brit corridor)
Local character areas Churchyards, treed areas, Creates a sense of character within a roadside verges, landscape settlement contributing to the screening, setting of a building, attractiveness of an area or building. open gaps, important views (for example Sherborne Abbey Close, Tree lined Avenues and Green spaces at Coneygar Road, Coneygar Lane and Beaumont Ave in Bridport, Open gap between Preston and Sutton Poyntz)
Other Allotments, community Providing accessible facilities to meet gardens, orchards, cemeteries needs within settlements, including and churchyards enabling local food production (for example Poundbury Community Farm, Bridport Community Orchard, St Georges church yard, Portland)
Page | 115 Page 234 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
20-i. Do you think the definitions of Green Infrastructure above offer a suitable framework for identifying green infrastructure types?
20-ii. Is there anything missing from the categories?
Page | 116 Page 235 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
21. Design
INTRODUCTION
21.1 The plan area has an exceptionally high quality built and natural environment and ensuring this is preserved and enhanced through good design in new development is a key aspect of sustainable development. High quality and sustainable design encompasses a wide range of elements from how a place looks and functions to the environmental performance of individual buildings. 21.2 In March 2015 the government introduced a new approach for setting technical standards for new housing development. It consolidated all technical standards into building regulations and provided the opportunity to have enhanced standards for access and water efficiency, as long as the requirement for them was in a local plan. 21.3 The new approach also introduced nationally described space standards for new dwellings which could only be applied through local plan policy. The optional enhanced technical standards for access are in two parts described in ‘Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings’ and ‘Wheelchair User Dwellings’.
CURRENT APPROACH
21.4 The adopted local plan currently requires development to comply with national technical standards as set out in Policy ENV12: “Development will achieve a high quality of sustainable and inclusive design. It will only be permitted where it complies with national technical standards”. These are the minimum standards set by building regulation and do not include any of the enhanced optional standards. 21.5 In relation to accessibility, Policy ENV12 also states that “”The councils will work with stakeholders and the local community to develop an approach for adaptable and accessible homes in accordance with the latest government guidance”. 21.6 The preamble to policy ENV13 makes reference to water efficiency by mentioning methods to achieve high environmental performance with regard to new development. The methods include “putting in place systems to collect rainwater for use” and “Sustainable Urban Drainage principles”.
REASON FOR CHANGE
21.7 At the time the Technical Standards were introduced the Local Plan was at an advanced stage of preparation and so could not incorporate any optional standards. The Ministerial Statement that introduced the standards states that: “The optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new local plan if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the NPPF and NPPG”. The NPPF states “Local planning authorities should take account of evidence that demonstrates a clear need for housing for people with specific housing needs and plan to meet this need.” Para 9 says that “pursing sustainable development involves seeking Page | 117 Page 236 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment as well as in peoples quality of life” which includes amongst other things; replacing poor design with better design, improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure and widening the choice of high quality homes.
PROPOSED APPROACH
21.8 The review of the local plan provides the opportunity to examine the evidence to establish if any enhanced standards are justified. 21.9 The adoption of any higher technical and space standards will have an impact on the build costs and subsequent affordability of new build properties. It may also have an impact on the overall viability of schemes and therefore before any additional standards are introduced, viability assessments of different options will need to be carried out. 21.10 There are a number of ways that enhanced standards could be applied and at this stage it is intended to seek views on possible options to take forward and test for viability. ACCESSIBILITY AND ADAPTABLE HOUSING
21.11 Accessible and adaptable standards mean making reasonable provision for most people to access a dwelling and incorporating features that make it potentially suitable for a wide range of occupants such as those with reduced mobility, older people, and some wheelchair users. 21.12 Within the plan area there is a higher proportion of people within the older age groups than in the country as a whole and that population is becoming increasingly significant. In addition, Weymouth & Portland has 21.6% of its population with long term illness or disability and West Dorset has 20.2% compared with 17.7% within England as a whole9. 21.13 This suggests that consideration should be given to the need to provide dwellings with enhanced accessibility to ensure the needs of an increasing proportion of the population are met in new developments.
21-i. Should there be a requirement to provide a proportion of new houses at the enhanced accessibility and adaptability standards? or
21-ii. Should the requirement for enhanced accessibility and adaptability standards in new housing apply in certain site specific circumstances only? For example sites in town centres or sites with level access to facilities most suitable for people with reduced mobility.
9 Public Health England 2013
Page | 118 Page 237 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE HOUSING
21.14 The standard for wheelchair accessible housing would require new dwellings to make reasonable provision, either at completion or at a point following completion, for a wheelchair user to live in the dwelling and use any associated private outdoor space, parking and communal facilities that may be provided for the use of other occupants. 21.15 These standards can only be applied where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in a dwelling.
21-iii. Should a requirement for a proportion of new houses to be suitable for wheelchair users be included within the Local Plan?
21-iv. Should a requirement for new homes to be suitable for wheelchair users be introduced in certain site specific circumstances? Examples might be sites in town centres or sites with level access to facilities.
NATIONALLY DESCRIBED SPACE STANDARDS
21.16 In pursing sustainable development in line with the NPPF we also need to ensure that homes provide adequate space to undertake typical day to day activities, and to avoid the health and social costs that arise where space is inadequate.
Figure 21.1: Minimum gross internal floor areas and storage (m2)
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF BED 1 STOREY 2 STOREY 3 STOREY BUILT-IN BEDROOMS (B) SPACES (PERSONS) DWELLINGS DWELLINGS DWELLINGS STORAGE
1p 39 (37)* 1.0 1b 2p 50 58 1.5
3p 61 70 2b 2.0 4p 70 79
3b 4p 74 84 90
5p 86 93 99 2.5
6p 95 102 108
4b 5p 90 97 103
6p 99 106 112 3.0 7p 108 115 121
8p 117 124 130
Page | 119 Page 238 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF BED 1 STOREY 2 STOREY 3 STOREY BUILT-IN BEDROOMS (B) SPACES (PERSONS) DWELLINGS DWELLINGS DWELLINGS STORAGE
5b 6p 103 110 116
7p 112 119 125 3.5
8p 121 128 134
6b 7p 116 123 129 4.0 8p 125 132 138
21-v. Should there be a requirement for new housing to comply with nationally described space standards?
WATER EFFICIENCY
21.17 In relation to water efficiency, Environment Agency data shows that the water companies serving the region (Wessex Water and South West Water) are classified as Medium Stress both in current and future scenario. It is therefore suggested that currently national standards for water efficiency in West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland area are appropriate and there is no evidence to suggest that optional enhanced standards should be required.
21-vi. Is there any evidence not considered above which would support the inclusion of enhanced standards for water efficiency within the local plan?
Page | 120 Page 239 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
22. Coastal Change
INTRODUCTION
22.1 Much of the coastline within the plan area is subject to coastal change. Although there are uncertainties regarding the extent and pace of sea level rise and coastal change, risks to property, habitats and infrastructure are expected from the constant evolution of the coast.
CURRENT APPROACH
22.2 National planning policy looks to reduce risk from coastal change by avoiding inappropriate development in vulnerable areas or actions that would add to physical changes to the coast. 22.3 The general approach is:
For local authorities to identify Coastal Change Management Areas likely to be affected by physical changes to the coast. Make clear what development will be appropriate in Coastal Change Management Areas and make provision for development and infrastructure that needs to be relocated away from coastal change management areas. POLICY ENV7 – COASTAL EROSION AND LAND INSTABILITY
22.4 The principle of the current approach is to direct new development away from areas vulnerable to coastal erosion and land instability unless it can be demonstrated that the site is stable or can be made stable. The areas of coastal change are shown on the proposals map. 22.5 Policy ENV7 recognises that further work is necessary and proposes to identify Coastal Change Management Areas (CCMAs) based on the Shoreline Management Plan and supporting evidence.
REASON FOR CHANGE
22.6 Identifying Coastal Change Management Areas and the forms of development and associated infrastructure that are appropriate within them is necessary to comply with national policy. 22.7 To fully comply with the requirements of national policy, the Local Plan should also consider the case for making provision for development and infrastructure that needs to be relocated away from Coastal Change Management Areas.
PROPOSED APPROACH
22.8 The extent of coastal change is currently defined through the Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP2). The SMP2 defines the over-arching strategy for managing the coast and identifies which sections of the coast are to be protected in the short, medium and long term. In addition to this, Coastal Risk Planning Guidance for West Dorset and Weymouth &
Page | 121 Page 240 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Portland (2014) has been prepared which sets out in more detail the nature of risks posed to coastal areas from future coastal change. COASTAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT AREAS (CCMAS)
22.9 The Coastal Risk Planning Guidance (CPRG) has mapped coastal risks from erosion, land sliding, flooding or managed realignment in 33 individual zones between Lyme Regis in the West and Ringstead Bay in the east. The guidance document has recommended that 29 of the 33 zones should be established as CCMAs with the exceptions being existing defended areas such as Weymouth Town Centre, West Bay and Lyme Regis Harbours. 22.10 Given the nature and extent of risk across the plan area coastline, the councils propose to follow this guidance and designate all parts of the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Coastline as a CCMA in the Local Plan Review except for the defended areas of Weymouth Town Centre, West Bay Harbour and Lyme Regis Harbours.
22-i. Do you agree that all parts of coastline except for the defended areas of Weymouth Town Centre, Weymouth Harbour and Lyme Regis Harbour should be designated as a Coastal Change Management Area?
APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN COASTAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT AREAS
22.11 The proposed approach to development within CCMAs is outlined in Figure 22.1. Figure 22.1: Approach to development within CCMAs
RISK OF COASTAL APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLES EROSION
Immediate Beach huts, cafes/tea rooms, car Limited range of types of (20 year time parks and sites for holiday or short-let development directly linked to the horizon) caravans and camping coastal strip. Time-limited planning This excludes permanent residential permission only development
Medium Hotels, shops, office or leisure (20 to 50 year activities requiring a coastal location time horizon) Wider range of types of development and providing substantial economic long-term with time limited planning permission and social benefits to the community. (up to 100-year This excludes permanent residential time horizon) development
22.12 Permanent new residential development will not be appropriate within the coastal change management area.
22-ii. Should the council limit the type of development that should or should not occur in the CCMA as set out in Figure 22.1?
Page | 122 Page 241 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
22.13 There are many existing commercial and social assets across the coastline which will be affected by coastal change and in many cases, it may not be economically viable or environmentally sustainable to protect all development at risk. 22.14 A potential way of mitigating the economic and social impacts associated with coastal change is to facilitate relocation of affected property (e.g. houses, farmsteads, commercial premises) further inland through roll back policies which seek to provide flexibility to enable development that would not normally be permitted in undeveloped coastal locations. The alternative would be that the councils do nothing and accept that nature will take its course, and that property, infrastructure and habitats will be permanently lost.
22-iii. Should the council introduce a rollback policy to allow development threatened by coastal erosion to obtain planning permission to be replaced and relocated further inland?
22-iv. If so, should the council restrict the types of development which can roll back?
22.15 In some undefended areas, for instance along the north-western shore of Portland Harbour, the rate of coastal erosion is likely to result in the loss of residential properties, roads, commercial premises e.g. caravan / holiday parks and coastal footpaths.
22-v. In areas where the risk to assets is most acute, should the councils formally allocate land for the relocation of development, infrastructure and habitat affected by coastal change?
Page | 123 Page 242 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
23. Wind Energy
CURRENT APPROACH
23.31 Policy COM 11 of the adopted Local Plan sets out the approach for all forms of renewable energy development other than wind energy development. The policy includes a positive strategy that allows proposals for generating heat or electricity from renewable sources (other than wind energy) where possible, providing that the benefits of the development significantly outweigh the harm.
REASON FOR CHANGE
23.32 The exclusion of wind energy development from policy COM11 was a late modification to the policy as a result of a change to national policy. 23.33 National planning policy asserts that applications for wind energy development will only be allowed if the development site is identified as suitable for wind energy in either a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Wind energy applications must also demonstrate that the planning impacts identified by local communities have been addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. 23.34 The review of the local plan presents an opportunity to consider the councils approach to wind energy development in light of the new Government policy.
PROPOSED APPROACH
23.35 National policy states that local planning authorities should “consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources”. 23.36 Suitable areas for renewable energy development would need to be identified and allocated in either the local plan or a neighbourhood plan. In either case national policy is clear that sites must be supported by the local community. 23.37 A local plan allocation would give greater certainty as to where such development will be permitted, as the councils should not have to give permission for speculative wind energy applications when they judge the impact to be unacceptable. 23.38 In identifying suitable areas for wind energy development the councils would be contributing positively towards increasing the supply of renewable and low carbon energy. Consideration would need to be given to the rich diversity of the local environment including the Dorset AONB and the World Heritage Site designations and the ability to secure community support. 23.39 An alternative route would be to rely on local initiatives for wind energy development, led by local communities and delivered through neighbourhood plans. 23.40 In either case, individual planning applications will continue to be considered on a case by case basis, with consideration given to the appropriateness of a project’s scale and design in that location.
Page | 124 Page 243 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
23-i. Should the councils allocate suitable sites for wind energy through the local plan or rely on locally led initiatives such as neighbourhood plans?
Page | 125 Page 244 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
24. Glossary
Area of Outstanding An area of countryside in England which has been designated for Natural Beauty (AONB) conservation due to its significant landscape value. Affordable Housing Social rented (normally owned by Housing Associations as registered providers, with rents set in accordance with the national rent regime), affordable rented (where the rent is set to be no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable)) and intermediate housing (homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels), provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market, having regard to local incomes and local house prices. Intermediate housing can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale that remain at an affordable price. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or, where this is not possible, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. Coastal Change An area likely to be affected by coastal change (physical change to the Management Area (CCMA) shoreline through erosion, coastal landslip, permanent inundation or coastal accretion). These will be defined though future policy Conservation Area A conservation area is an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Community Infrastructure A levy allowing the councils to raise funds from owners or developers Levy (CIL) of land undertaking new building projects in the area. Duty to Cooperate Places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters. The duty to cooperate is not a duty to agree. But local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before they submit their Local Plans for examination. Green Infrastructure (GI) A network of multi-functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Housing Market Area The functional housing market area is …the geographical area in which (HMA) a substantial majority of the employed population both live and work and where those moving house without changing employment choose to stay” (Maclennan et al, 1998)
Page | 126 Page 245 West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review
Key Employment Site Larger employment sites that make a significant contribution to the employment land supply. Local Green Space Local Green Space designation is a way to provide special protection against development for green areas of particular importance to local communities. National Planning Policy The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March Framework (NPPF) 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. National Planning Practice The planning practice guidance is a web-based resource intended to Guidance (PPG) assist planning practitioners in an accessible and usable way. Ultimately the interpretation of legislation is for the Courts but this guidance is an indication of the Secretary of State’s views. Objectively Assessed Need The housing that households are willing and able to buy or rent, either (OAN) from their own resources or with assistance from the State. Registered Park and The Register of Historic Parks and Gardens of special historic interest in Garden England provides a listing and classification system for historic parks and gardens similar to that used for listed buildings. The register aims to "celebrate designed landscapes of note, and encourage appropriate protection”, so safeguarding the features and qualities of key landscapes for the future. Shoreline Management A plan providing a large-scale assessment of the risk to people and to Plan (SMP) the developed, historic and natural environment associated with coastal processes. Self Build and Custom We define self-build as projects where someone directly organises the Housebuilding design and construction of their new home. Custom build homes tend to be those where you work with a specialist developer to help deliver your own home. Site of Special Scientific Sites designated by Natural England under the Wildlife and Interest (SSSI) Countryside Act 1981. A SSSI is a conservation designation that may be made on any area of land which is considered to be of special interest by virtue of its fauna, flora, geological or physiographical / geomorphological features. Starter Homes A Starter Home is a new dwelling only available for purchase by qualifying first-time buyers and which is made available at price which is at least 20% less than its market value but which is below the price cap. A price cap of £250,000 outside Greater London and £450,000 in Greater London. The purchaser must be a first-time buyer (falling within the statutory definition) under the age of 40.
Page | 127 Page 246 Appendix 2
West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review: Consultation on Issues and Options – Issues Raised by West Dorset’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Weymouth and Portland’s Policy Development Committee
Issues Raised by West Dorset’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1 The draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document was considered by West Dorset’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 22 November 2016 (as Appendix 1 to Agenda Item 6). Where the matters raised at the meeting have resulted in a suggested change to the consultation document, these are set out below. The suggested changes also reflect further discussions with members on how best to address the matters raised. A more comprehensive summary of the matters discussed at the meeting appears in the minutes of the committee.
Option Sites at Chickerell
2 Section 8 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document deals with the issue of development at Weymouth and Chickerell. Figure 8.5 on Page 48 of the draft consultation document shows five options for growth at Weymouth and Chickerell. These options are all shown with a ‘W’ prefix although two of the option sites are actually in Chickerell.
3 Members of the committee felt that a distinction should be drawn between the sites in Chickerell and those in Weymouth. To address this issue it is suggested that sites W1: West of Southill and W5: Adjacent Budmouth College, which are shown on the map in Figure 8.5 on page 48 and in the table at the top of Page 49 should be given a ‘C’ or ‘CH’ prefix. The remaining sites in Weymouth would then be re-numbered.
4 Following further discussions with members it is suggested that the consultation document should include a separate chapter on Chickerell, which would enable more detailed commentary to be provided on proposals for the town, both from the adopted local plan and in the local plan review.
5 It is suggested that the new chapter should discuss the issue of phasing, particularly in relation to site W1: West of Southill. It should set out that in the event this option is taken forward, then it may be appropriate to phase its delivery to later in the plan period, given the significant level of housing growth already proposed at Chickerell in the adopted local plan.
6 In relation to Site W5: Adjacent Budmouth College, it is suggested that some text should be added to make clear that any housing in this area should not prejudice the future expansion of the college, which may be required to support growth in the local area. The text should set out that this option site should only be taken forward if sufficient space remains for Page 247 additional secondary education provision and associated sporting facilities at Budmouth College.
Protection of Employment Sites
7 Section 18 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document deals with the issue of the protection of employment land from other forms of development. Sites identified as ‘key employment sites’ are all listed in Figure 18.1 on page 107 of the document. This replicates the list of key employment sites in Table 4.1 (on page 82) of the adopted local plan. Such sites are protected by Policy ECON2 and receive a higher level of protection than ‘other employment sites’ which are protected by Policy ECON3.
8 Question 18-i asks “are there ‘key employment sites’ listed in figure 18.1 that should no longer be given the higher level of protection afforded to ‘key employment sites’? Please tell us which ones and why.”
9 Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee felt that there may be some other employment sites which are not currently identified as ‘key employment sites’ (and subject to Policy ECON2), which should be added to the list in Figure 18.1.
10 To address this issue it is suggested that an additional question should be asked seeking views on whether any existing employment sites should be added to the list of ‘key employment sites’ and protected by Policy ECON2 of the local plan.
Green Infrastructure Network
11 Section 20 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document deals with the issue of green infrastructure and Figure 20.1 on page 115 of the document sets out the different types of green infrastructure and their functions.
12 The primary function of ‘green corridors’ is identified as relating to ‘creating a sustainable travel network …’. Members recognised that green corridors could perform this function, but felt that this was not the primary function of such corridors. They felt that the primary function was to provide corridors for wildlife, including links between wildlife sites.
13 It is suggested that the text in Figure 20.1 should be amended to indicate that the primary function of green corridors is to create corridors for wildlife, including links between wildlife sites, whilst also recognising that such corridors could also contribute to the creation of sustainable travel networks.
Modular Housing
14 Section 21 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document deals with the issue of design and seeks views on enhanced standards of accessibility, adaptability, space standards and water efficiency. Page 248 15 Whilst members felt that it would be useful to seek views on such matters, they were concerned that enhanced standards may have implications for meeting housing needs, particularly for those having difficulty in accessing the housing market.
16 Members felt that it would be useful to also seek views on the issue of modular housing (i.e. housing that is pre-fabricated off-site, which can be constructed quickly and at a lower cost).
17 The Housing and Planning Minister Gavin Barwell recently raised this issue expressing the view that modular housing could help to increase housing supply. The right kind of modular housing could also help more people to access the housing market.
18 It is suggested that an additional question should be asked in the Initial Issues and Options Consultation document seeking views on the role modular housing could play in meeting housing needs in the local plan area.
Coastal Change
19 Section 22 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document deals with the issue of coastal change. The text in paragraph 22.10 and question 22-i of the document refer to a number of named harbours (West Bay Harbour, Lyme Regis Harbour and Weymouth Town Centre). Members felt that it was unclear precisely which areas were covered by these terms.
20 Officers have sought to keep the Issues and Options document as short as possible, but it is recognised that some people may want more detail on particular issues. With that in mind it is intended to prepare a number of background papers, which will look at the issues in greater depth. These background papers are currently being drafted.
21 To address the issue raised by members, it is suggested that the harbour areas should be more clearly defined in the background paper on coastal change and that reference to the relevant background paper should be made in the main consultation document.
Maps
22 Members raised a general issue about the clarity of the maps in the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document and suggested that all maps should be shown on a detailed Ordnance Survey (OS) base. This issue was also raised by members of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s Policy Development Committee.
23 The approach taken by officers had been to prepare three maps for each of the settlements where options for growth have been identified. The maps of the constraints have been shown on an OS base, but those of the ‘broad areas of search’ and ‘potential options for growth’ have been shown on simplified, less detailed, maps. Page 249 24 The approach taken by officers was with the aim of trying to highlight the potential option sites. It was felt that the less detailed maps were helpful in highlighting these sites. However, members took the view that the OS bases would make it easier for readers to understand the location of the potential site options.
25 As a result of the discussions with members of both councils it is suggested that all maps in the consultation document should be shown on OS bases.
Sustainability Appraisal
26 The draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document is supported by a sustainability appraisal, which is linked from the agenda as a background document. Section 2 of the sustainability appraisal sets out the methodology for the appraisal of alternatives (including the appraisal of different site-based options at the larger settlements).
27 Figure 2.2 explains the system used to classify the magnitude of any impacts in a large number of matrices included in the document, ranging from ‘strong positive’ to ‘strong negative’. Members were concerned that this is the only place in the document that this scoring system is explained, which could make it difficult for people reading the document and trying to understand how the councils had evaluated the different alternatives.
28 Officers are currently investigating how best to amend the document to address this concern, so that readers do not have to refer back to Figure 2.2 to understand the system used to classify the magnitude of any impacts. It is intended to reproduce Figure 2.2 (or a simplified version of it) throughout the document.
Issues Raised by Weymouth and Portland’s Policy Development Committee
29 The draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document was considered by Weymouth and Portland’s Policy Development Committee, on 28 November 2016 (as Appendix 1 to Agenda Item 9). Where the matters raised at the meeting have resulted in a suggested change to the consultation document, these are set out below. The suggested changes also reflect comments made by other members at the committee and subsequent discussions. A more comprehensive summary of the matters discussed at the meeting appears in the minutes to the committee.
Low Impact Dwellings
30 Section 16 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document deals with the issue of self-build housing. ‘Low impact dwellings’, which are buildings constructed from materials that are recycled, reusable and have low embodied energy (such as straw bales, re-used tyres etc.) would be a form of self-build housing. A member asked whether views should be sought on whether such dwellings could make a contribution to meeting housing needs. Page 250 31 Paragraph 5.7.4 of the current local plan provides some commentary on new low impact dwellings indicating that they may be acceptable, in principle: within defined development boundaries; on affordable housing exception sites; and if a scheme met the criteria for a rural workers’ dwelling.
32 Officers suggest that the scope of Section 16 should be widened to seek views on whether low impacts dwellings, as a form of self-build housing, could (or should) play more of a role in meeting housing needs.
Wave and Tidal Power
33 Section 23 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document deals with the issue of onshore wind energy. Members raised the issue of whether the local plan review should also address the potential for wave and tidal power.
34 In general, coastal local authorities have administrative control and jurisdiction over areas down to low water mark, but in some cases this extends seaward of low water mark, for example in harbours, bays, inlets, creeks and channels. Opportunities for wave or tidal power are likely to be limited in such locations, but any such proposals would be considered under Policy COM11: Renewable Energy Development of the current local plan, which is generally supportive of the principle of such schemes.
35 Below low water mark, in locations where there is no local authority jurisdiction, any proposals for wave or tidal power would not be considered against the local plan (or any new policy in the review), but would be determined under the National Infrastructure Planning regime. Under this regime any proposal for wave or tidal power would be considered by a planning inspector against relevant National Policy Statements (NPSs). There is no technology-specific NPS for wave or tidal schemes, but any proposals would need to be consistent with NPSs EN-1: Overarching NPS for Energy; EN-3: Renewable Energy Infrastructure; and EN-5: Electrical Networks Infrastructure.
36 Since there are already national and local policies in place against which any proposals for wave or tidal energy would be considered, officers suggest that it would not be appropriate to seek views on this matter in the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document.
Unclear Maps in Relation to Options on Portland
37 Members considered that the maps in the draft Issues and Options Consultation document, particularly those relating to Portland, were unclear. Particular concerns were raised in relation to Figure 12.4 on page 87, which didn’t show the names of the settlements or the roads on Portland.
38 The issue about the clarity of the maps in the draft Issues and Options consultation document was raised, as an issue more generally at the meeting of West Dorset’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Following further discussion with members of both councils it is suggested that all maps should be shown on OS bases.Page 251
Options on Portland – Loss of Gaps / Open Space
39 Members expressed concern about the loss of gaps and open areas that would result if the option sites for Portland in the consultation document were taken forward. The potential loss of the remaining gap on Weston Street if Option Site P1: Eastern end of Weston Street was taken forward was of particular concern.
40 The highly constrained nature of Portland is recognised in paragraph 13.4 (on page 81) of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document. The environmental constraints are listed in paragraph 13.10 (page 82) and are shown on a map in Figure 13.2 on page 83. Given the constraints, officers have found it difficult to find potential site options, as the analysis in paragraphs 13.12 to 13.14 shows and the total capacity of the three potential options identified is only 280 dwellings for the period to 2036. (See also below where it is suggested that Option Site P2: North of Southwell should be removed from the consultation document in the light of the submission of a planning application for the mining of stone. The capacity of the two remaining sites is 180 dwellings).
41 Option Site P1: Eastern end of Weston Street is one of the few potential options sites that is not subject to national or international designations, although it is recognised that it is subject to a local designation. As part of the review, a number of potential option sites across the plan area have been identified which impinge on local designations. A number of potential option sites at Bridport, Beaminster, Lyme Regis and Dorchester also impinge on the national designation of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
42 Officers suggest that Option Site P1: Eastern end of Weston Street should be retained in the draft Issues and Options consultation document and views should be sought from the public on its suitability. Officers also suggest that a further question should be added to the consultation document asking about further opportunities within existing built-up areas on Portland, as discussed in more detail below.
Option Site P2: North of Southwell - Recent Planning Application for the Mining of Stone
43 Members advised officers that a planning application for the mining of stone had recently been submitted for part of the land under Option Site P2: North of Southwell and were concerned that this had serious implications for this option site.
44 Application WP/16/00818/NOTS proposes the mining of stone within part of Coombefield Quarry on the northern side of Avalanche Road. The application is also accompanied by a unilateral undertaking to revoke the existing consent for surface quarrying in that area.
45 The supporting statement to the application sets out the proposals in more detail and indicates that the applicant is seeking a consent that would last until 2042, which is the same end date as the surface quarrying consent that is being offered for revocation.Page 252Further information in the application suggests that on the basis of planned rates of extraction, mining would continue for between 8 and 25 years, although it also suggests that the mine would only operate intermittently to provide stone for specific jobs, because the main dimension stone production area will still be from Perryfields.
46 Whilst the current application has yet to be determined, it is clear that in the event of consent being granted, much of Option Site P2: North of Southwell would not be available for housing development for all or most of the plan period (i.e. to 2036). On that basis officers suggest that the Initial Issues and Options Consultation document should be amended to exclude Option Site P2: North of Southwell.
Options on Portland – Impacts on Landscape and Archaeological Sites
47 Members expressed concern that development on Option Site P3: South of Southwell would intrude into an area designated as Land of Local Landscape Importance. Concern was also expressed about the potential impact on ‘Lawnsheds’, including areas which are designated as a Scheduled Monument.
48 The constrained nature of Portland and the difficulty in finding potential option sites is discussed above and those issues are also relevant to this site. A Scheduled Monument is a national designation and the potential site option has been drawn to avoid this designated area, although clearly any impact on the setting of the Scheduled Monument covering ‘Lawnsheds’ is an issue that needs to be taken into account.
49 Officers suggest that Option Site P3: South of Southwell should be retained in the draft Issues and Options consultation document and views should be sought from the public on its suitability. Officers also suggest that a further question should be added to the consultation document asking about further opportunities within existing built-up areas on Portland, as discussed in more detail below.
Options on Portland – Capacity within Existing Built-up Areas
50 Members asked officers whether they had considered the potential for development within the Defined Development Boundaries (DDBs) on Portland. Members were particularly keen to know whether the capacity of vacant (or soon to be vacant) school sites had been taken into account.
51 The current local plan makes provision for 14,855 homes to be provided across the plan area by 2031 (as discussed in paragraphs 3.3.9 to 3.3.16 of the local plan). Figure 3.4 shows that this includes extant planning permissions and likely ‘windfall’ development from large and small sites within settlements. These figures include any sites identified on Portland.
52 The situation with regard to planning consents and windfall development is dynamic and changes from year to year and with this in mind, the more immediate ‘five-year supply’ is monitored and annual reports setting out the five-year land supply position are available online - https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/421799/West-Dorset-Weymouth-- Portland-monitoring. All the sitesPage on Portland 253 with permission that are included in the five year supply are set out in Appendix A of the latest 2016 monitoring document.
53 As part of the preparation of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document a ‘call for sites’ was made to landowners and developers to suggest sites that would be available for housing development to be included in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Dorset County Council (DCC) did not submit any sites on Portland through that process, however, subsequent informal discussions with DCC officers have indicated that they are investigating the development potential of sites in their ownership as part of a Government initiative to make better use of public land.
54 Given the difficulty in finding potential option sites on Portland, it is suggested that a question should be added to the draft Issues and Options consultation document asking for the identification of potential brownfield sites for housing within existing built-up areas.
The Settlement Hierarchy and Portland
55 Members expressed concern about how it was proposed to describe the settlements on Portland, as set out in paragraphs 5.39 to 5.44 and in Question 5-viii on pages 23 and 24 of the draft consultation document.
56 Members were concerned that the proposed definitions did not reflect the way in which the identities of the settlements on Portland were perceived locally. In particular, members were concerned over what appeared to be the ‘merging’ of Easton and Weston and the merging of Fortuneswell and Castletown.
57 At the meeting officers clarified that there was no intention to merge the settlements on the ground: it was only intended to try and describe the settlements to more accurately reflect how the Defined Development Boundaries (DDBs) are drawn on the policies map, which forms part of the current local plan.
58 Given the confusion caused by the wording in paragraphs 5.39 to 5.44 and in Question 5-viii, it is suggested that they are re-drafted to focus on the following proposed changes: To amend the second bullet point in Policy SUS3(i) of the Local Plan to clarify that the settlements on Portland, rather than the whole of the Isle of Portland or the ‘coastal town’ of Portland, should be the focus for growth outside the main towns of Dorchester and Weymouth; and To provide a more comprehensive list of the settlements on Portland in the box after paragraph 3.3.26 of the local plan. Currently this box lists Easton, Fortuneswell, Grove, Southwell and Weston, but omits Castletown, Wakeham and Chiswell. It is suggested that all eight settlements should be listed (separately) in the box after paragraph 3.3.26 of the local plan.
Page 254 Options at Chickerell - Option Site W1: West of Southill
59 The committee was informed of discussions that had taken place with West Dorset members and the proposal to amend the draft consultation document to include a separate section on Chickerell. Members did not object to this approach, but wished to be assured that residents of Weymouth would have the opportunity to comment on Option Site W1: West of Southill.
60 If a separate section on Chickerell is included in the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document, a number of consequential changes will need to be made to Section 8, which as currently drafted deals with both Weymouth and Chickerell.
61 Whilst the bulk of Option Site W1: West of Southill falls within Chickerell parish, a small part is located within Weymouth and Portland Borough where it adjoins the existing built up area. Officers therefore suggest that some commentary on this site should be retained in Section 8 to ensure that residents of the Borough are aware of the potential option site that has been identified in the neighbouring parish (i.e. Chickerell).
Population of Sutton Poyntz
62 A member expressed concern that the figure for the estimated population of Sutton Poyntz, set out as ‘c.300’ in Figure 5.1 on page 19 of the draft Initial Issues and Options consultation document, was incorrect.
63 Local people are currently preparing a neighbourhood plan for Sutton Poyntz. The application for the designation of the neighbourhood area and forum indicated that “the Neighbourhood Plan area contains about 230- 240 properties and has an estimated population of around 500 persons”.
64 On that basis it is suggested that Figure 5.1 on page 19 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document should be amended to indicate that Sutton Poyntz has a population of about 500.
Coastal Change and Coastal Protection
65 Members expressed concern that paragraphs 22.9 and 22.10 and Question 22-i only sought to defend a limited number of coastal locations, including Weymouth Town Centre, West Bay Harbour and Lyme Regis Harbour. A member considered that Bowlease Cove and Sandsfoot Castle should also be defended.
66 Section 22 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document seeks to take forward national policy in relation to coastal change, as set out in paragraphs 106 to 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 106 indicates that local planning authorities “should identify as a Coastal Change Management Area (CCMA) any area likely to be affected by physical changes to the coast”.
67 Paragraphs 22.9 and 22.10 explain that all areas of the coast in the local plan area are likely to be affected by physical changes except those that are currently defended, namely PageWeymouth 255 Town Centre, West Bay Harbour and Lyme Regis Harbour. Since Bowlease Cove and Sandsfoot Castle are not currently protected they are not listed.
68 Section 22 seeks views on the identification of CCMAs and how best to manage proposals for new residential and other forms of new development that could be at risk from coastal erosion in the future. Identifying CCMAs would not preclude proposals coming forward separately for coastal protection works for existing development, although they would need to be in line with the strategic approach to managing the coast set out in the current Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2), as mentioned in paragraph 22.8 of the consultation document. It is not proposed to make any further changes to the draft Initial Issues and Options consultation document in relation to this issue.
A354 Weymouth to Portland Relief Road
69 Members referred to paragraphs 13.6 to 13.9 of the draft consultation document, which set out the comments made by the local plan inspector in relation to Portland. A member noted that the inspector felt that there was not sufficient justification for safeguarding a route for the A354 Weymouth to Portland Relief Road, but felt that such a route should be defined in the local plan review in order to increase the likelihood of its delivery.
70 This issue was discussed at the local plan inquiry and considered by the local plan inspector relatively recently. In the light of members concerns, officers have informally discussed the issue with officers from DCC and their position has not changed.
71 Whilst schemes have been prepared in the past, there is currently no defined alignment for the route of the road. Without a defined alignment it would be difficult to justify the protection of a specific corridor on the policies map of the local plan. Most of the route would run through the Heritage Coast, which current local plan policies seek to protect. This limits the potential threat to the future implementation of any road scheme.
72 Evidence given by the council at the local plan examination noted that the A354 Weymouth to Portland Relief Road is not in any funding stream and is therefore extremely unlikely to be delivered within the plan period. Although the review would extend the plan period by five years, it remains extremely unlikely that any road would be delivered before 2036. The local plan inspector noted that the identification of a safeguarded route, with major uncertainties over the timescale for delivery and possible future funding, could lead to land and properties being unreasonably blighted. Given the situation outlined above, it is not proposed to make any further changes to the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document in relation to this issue.
Growth and Dorchester and Sherborne
73 Members felt it was important that the local plan review addressed the local plan inspector’s concerns in relation to Dorchester and Sherborne. He wished to ensure that adequate provision for growth was made at these towns in order to ensure that pressure was not put upon Weymouth and Portland to accommodate anyPage shortfall. 256 74 Sections 6 and 7 of the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document relate to Dorchester and Sherborne respectively. A number of option sites have been identified at both towns with the capacity to accommodate a significant amount of housing development. It is not proposed to make any further changes to the draft Initial Issues and Options consultation document in this respect.
Elderly Persons Accommodation
75 Members were keen to ensure that adequate provision for elderly persons accommodation was made through the local plan review.
76 Paragraphs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 and Policy HOUS5 of the current local plan relate to the provision of residential care accommodation, including extra care housing. This policy is broadly supportive of such provision, particularly in areas that are easily accessible for visitors and staff and where residents can access community facilities and public transport.
77 At later stages of plan production, it may be appropriate for the councils to consider whether provision should be made for elderly persons accommodation within major allocations once they have been identified. However, it would not be appropriate to do so at this early issues and options stage.
Wheelchair Access
78 Members referred to paragraphs 21.14 and 21.15 and Questions 21-iii and 21-iv on page 119 of the draft consultation document. Members were keen to ensure that a proportion of new houses are designed to be suitable for wheelchair users.
79 Since Question 21-iii already asks “should a requirement for a proportion of new houses to be suitable for wheelchair users be included in the Local Plan”, it is not proposed to make any further changes to the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document in this respect.
Existing Consents for Housing and Minerals
80 Members felt that the consultation should ensure that people are aware of existing planning permissions for housing and for existing mineral consents on Portland. Members also wished to be assured that the consented development at Curtis Fields had been taken into account in the housing figures.
81 There are a large number of existing planning consents throughout the plan area and showing them all on the maps in the draft Initial Issues and Options Consultation document would make the maps very difficult to interpret. However, in relation to Portland, where opportunities for further development are limited, it may be helpful to provide greater clarity on the key sites that already have planning permission for housing, in particular the Hardy Complex, sites on Osprey Quay and Bumpers Lane. Page 257 82 It is suggested that this could be done by including some brief commentary in the text in Section 13 of the consultation document and enhancing the maps of Portland to show all sites above a certain size (perhaps 30 dwellings) with planning permission. It is also intend to produce more detailed background papers that will accompany the public consultation starting in February 2017. The background paper relating to Portland could include a more comprehensive discussion of the planning permissions that are currently granted but not yet implemented.
83 Officers can confirm that the consented development at Curtis Fields has been taken into account in the housing figures.
General Improvement Area at Fortuneswell
84 A member expressed a possible need for a General Improvement Area (GIA) at Fortuneswell.
85 The concept of a GIA was introduced in the 1969 Housing Act. This gives local authorities the power to designate GIAs, which are predominately residential areas in which a housing authority considers that it should improve or help to improve living conditions by improving existing homes or amenities (or both).
86 The legislative power is in place to create a GIA so the designation of such an area would not need to be promoted through the review of the local plan.
Page 258 Agenda Item 16
Management Committee 13 December 2016 Local Council Tax Support Scheme For Recommendation To Council
Briefholder(s) Cllr J Cant - Finance & Assets Cllr C James – Social Inclusion
Senior Leadership Team Contact Jason Vaughan, Strategic Director
Purpose of Report
1 To review the conditions of the Local Council Tax Support scheme and propose a revised scheme, effective from 1 April 2017.
Officer Recommendations
2 That Committee recommend that Council make the following changes to the Local Council Tax Support scheme, effective from 1 April 2017, to align it to the Housing Benefit scheme. I. That the Family Premium be removed for all new working age claimants where protection is not provided (i.e. those who receive Universal Credit, Income Support, Income Related Employment and Support Allowance or Income Based Jobseeker’s Allowance). II. That the maximum period for backdating be reduced to one month III. That the maximum period for which a person can be absent from Great Britain and still receive Council Tax Support be reduced to four weeks apart from where protection is provided, as set out in appendix 1.
Reasons for Recommendation
3 To ensure that proper arrangements are undertaken in relation to the Council’s Local Council Tax Support scheme.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 Committee will be aware that as part of its Welfare Reform, government decided that the national Council Tax Benefit scheme would be replaced from 1 Page 259 April 2013 by local schemes. These new schemes are called Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) schemes and are determined by each billing authority for its area.
5 As part of these changes, government decided to reduce the level of grant provided to help fund the cost of awards to 90% of the estimated awards likely to be made in 2012/13. As the reduction is applied to the Council Tax Collection Fund it is shared by Dorset County Council, Fire & Police authorities as well as the Council. Billing authorities have the discretion to “top-up” the gap in funding from the Collection Fund or to set its scheme so that it is self funding.
6 Government also decided that pensioner claimants must be protected under the local schemes and be entitled to receive the same level of funding as they would under the existing national scheme. In addition, government believes that local schemes should protect the most vulnerable and be designed to help incentivise work.
7 Following extensive modelling of the likely financial and customer impact, Council set a scheme with the following characteristics. • The scheme would be as similar to the old Council Tax Benefit scheme as possible. • Everyone of working age, except the most vulnerable, would pay at least 8.5% of their Council Tax. • The most vulnerable people would be protected from the changes. • Those defined as vulnerable include: I. Pensioners II. People who are in receipt of a Disability Premium, Enhanced Disability Premium, Severe Disability Premium, Disabled Child Premium, Carer Premium or Support Component within in either their Council Tax Support, Housing Benefit, Income Support, income-based Jobseekers Allowance or income-related Employment Support Allowance. III. People who are in receipt of War Disablement Pension, War Widows Pension or War Widows Disablement Pension. • The scheme would include support to a householder who has a second adult on a low income living with them (Second Adult Rebate). • The scheme would not include a limit on the lowest amount given to a working age claimant.
8 The table below sets out details of the LCTS awards made in 2015/16 and 2016/17 together with government subsidy received.
2015/16 2016/17 Page 260 (estimated) Total LCTS awarded £5,821,494 £5,825,881 Government grant £5,646,527 £5,646,527 received Gap being met by £174,967 £179,354 Collection Fund WPBC share of gap £27,925 £28,623 Number of claimants 6,277 6,043
9 Committee will note that as the government grant is fixed, any increase in awards will have to be met from the Collection Fund.
10 Members were concerned that the introduction of LCTS would have a significant impact on customers and Council Tax collection. In reality, we have found that this has not been the case and collection levels are at similar levels to that before LCTS was introduced. However, it is acknowledged that a number of Council Taxpayers have been faced with having to pay Council Tax for the first time. Staff have worked closely with such customers and advisory organisations, such as the CAB, to help resolve issues and agree affordable payment arrangements.
11 As a result of government making alterations to the Housing Benefit scheme there is now a need to make the following housekeeping changes to the Council’s LCTS scheme so that both schemes are more aligned. Making these changes will make the LCTS scheme easier to administer and also reduce customer confusion.
12 Removing the Family Premium for all new working age claimants. The removal of the family premium from 1st April 2017 for new claims will bring the LCTS scheme in line with Housing Benefit. The family premium is part of how we assess the ‘needs’ (Applicable Amounts) of any applicant which is compared with their income. Family Premium is normally given when an applicant has at least one dependant child living with them. Removing the family premium will mean that when we assess an applicant’s needs we will not include the family premium (currently £17.45 per week).
Whilst it is difficult to identify potential customers from 2017, analysis from 2015/16 has been undertaken:
It is estimated that 150 cases would be affected as “passported benefit” cases would not be affected. Passported benefits include those in receipt Universal Credit, Income Support, Income Based Jobseekers Allowance, Income Related Employment and Support Allowance. They will tend to be the higher weekly awards.
Of the 342 cases, the customers average weekly CTS was £13.42. Applying the 20% taper to this “additional income” means that customers would lose
Page 261 £3.49 per week. Therefore, the average weekly CTS would be £9.93 per week.
Of the 342 cases from 2015/16, 55 would no longer receive any award (i.e. their weekly CTS was below £3.50).
13 Reducing the maximum period for backdating to one month Currently claims for Council Tax Support from working age applicants can be backdated for up to 3 months where an applicant shows they could not claim at an earlier time. Central Government has reduced the period for Housing Benefit claims to 1 month. It is proposed that the Council’s Council Tax Support Scheme be aligned with the changes for Housing Benefit. Analysis from 2015/16 has been undertaken:
In 2015/16 331 cases were backdated, however it is estimated that 220 would be protected from the changes. 111 would be affected.
Of the 331 cases, 113 were for a period greater than 30 days. The average period of backdated award was 29 days (i.e. less than one month) and the average weekly award was £12.16.
44 cases were backdated for a period greater than 60 days
14 Reducing the period for which a person can be absent from Great Britain and still receive Council Tax Support to four weeks Within the current scheme, applicants can be temporarily absent from their homes for 13 weeks (or 52 weeks in certain cases) without it affecting the Council Tax Support. This replicated the rule within Housing Benefit. Housing Benefit has been changed so that if a person is absent from Great Britain for a period of more than 4 weeks, their benefit will cease. It is proposed that the Council’s Council Tax Support scheme is amended to reflect the changes in Housing Benefit. There will be exceptions for certain occupations such as mariners and the armed forces. Further details about the exceptions are given in appendix 1.
It is very rare for a claimant to claim LCTS when they are abroad and are absent from the property for more than 4 weeks. In view of this, it is estimated that this change would have limited impact on customers.
15 Under the Local Government Act 2012, Councils are required to consult with customers and key stakeholders prior to making changes to their LCTS schemes. Any changes to the scheme has to be agreed by Council before 31 January for implementation from the following April. In line with this requirement, a consultation exercise has been undertaken over the months September to November (inclusive). The results of the consultation exercise are shown at appendix 2.
Page 262 Implications
Appendices
16 Appendix 1 – Instances where LCTS can be awarded where the claimant is temporary absent from their home 17 Appendix 2 - Results of consultation exercise.
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: Stuart Dawson Telephone: 01305 211925 Email: [email protected]
Page 263 This page is intentionally left blank Page 265 This page is intentionally left blank Page 267 Page 268 Page 269 Page 270 Page 271 Page 272 Page 273 Page 274 Page 275 Page 276 Page 277 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 Page 284 Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Page 288 Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Page 295 Page 296 Page 297 Page 298 Page 299 Page 300 Page 301 Page 302 Page 303 Page 304 Page 305 Page 306 Page 307 Page 308 Page 309 Page 310 Page 311 Page 312 Page 313 Page 314 Page 315 Page 316 Page 317 Page 318 Page 319 Page 320 Page 321 Page 322 Page 323 Page 324 Page 325 Page 326 Page 327 Page 328 Page 329 Page 330 Page 331 Page 332 Page 333 Page 334 Agenda Item 17
Management Committee 13 December 2016 Grant Agreement with Dorset Race Equality Council
For Decision
Briefholder Cllr Christine James – Social Inclusion
Senior Leadership Team Contact: S Hill, Strategic Director
Report Author: S Ward-Rice, Community Development Team Leader
Statutory Authority The Equality Act, 2010
Purpose of Report
1 To seek approval for a grant agreement to Dorset Race Equality Council in line with the council’s Discretionary Grants, Loans and Subsidies Policy (at Appendix 1) and to ensure that the council complies with its legal equality duties.
Officer Recommendations
2 a) To approve a grant of £2,000 for one year (2017-18), then subject to a further review.
b) That any funding for 2017-18 be built into the 2017-18 budget process.
Reason for Decision
3 To support the ongoing work of Dorset Race Equality Council in Weymouth & Portland.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 Following the approval of the discretionary grants, loans and subsidies policy in 2012, all grants to outside bodies of £1,000 or more are subject to committee approval. Page 335 5 Weymouth & Portland Borough Council has continued to provide financial support to Dorset Race Equality Council (Dorset REC), which has enabled Dorset REC to provide information, support and advice to victims of racial discrimination, encourage good relations between and within local communities and provide advocacy services for ethnic minority communities. Weymouth and Portland has a higher, 5.1% Black Minority Ethnic (BME) population than Dorset County, 4.5% and 2.1% of the population do not have English as their main language as opposed to the county figure of 1.7%. Melcombe Regis Ward has a BME population of 8.3%.
6 The council in partnership with other local authorities across Dorset has had a joint grant agreement in place since April 2012. This agreement is currently managed by Bournemouth Borough Council and includes the following: Poole Borough Council North Dorset District Council West Dorset District Council Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group
7 Dorset County Council has a separate agreement with Dorset REC which is managed by Citizens Advice in Dorset (CAiD).
8 Dorset Race Equality Council was established in 1991, current trustees include Councillor Pauline Batstone (North Dorset District Council and Dorset County Council) and Roger Hayre (treasurer) a resident and business owner in Weymouth.
9 Dorset Race Equality Council has a core staff team comprising of Chief Executive Officer, three Community Development Workers and an administrator.
10 Dorset Race Equality Council is the only organisation of its kind in Dorset. Its stated aims are to: Ensure that ethnic minority individuals and communities in Dorset feel empowered to challenge racism and discrimination and have access to support and information.
Promote the celebration of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity in Dorset society and strengthen local ethnic minority organisations.
Work towards making public, private and voluntary sector agencies in Dorset fully representative of, and responsive to, the ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of the population; offering equal opportunities and equal access to all.
11 Dorset Race Equality Council is located in Bournemouth, and staff regularly attend events and meetings around Dorset including Weymouth & Portland.
12 Dorset Race Equality Council has worked on a number of initiatives and projects in Weymouth and Portland in the last year and this includes the following: Page 336 Attending community events such as Weymouth Carnival and the Gypsy & Traveller Awareness Event. Continuing to organise and facilitate the Forum for Equality and Diversity (FED) on behalf of Dorset County Council and holding this event on Portland on 28 July 2016, which attracted 25 attendees and included presentations from Weymouth & Portland Borough Council, The Verne Visitors Group and Dorchester Islamic Centre. Regular dialogue with the Verne Immigration Removal Centre supporting staff around equality and diversity. Continuing to act as a third party reporting centre for people who experience a hate crime. Three people from Weymouth & Portland contacted Dorset REC to report their incidents. Dorset REC then liaised with Prejudice Free Dorset and the Police around these incidents. Working with Dorset County Council and partners on the development of Syrian Resettlement Programme for Dorset, including holding a recent public event in Weymouth to raise awareness of migrant workers by distributing yellow roses as a gesture of friendship. Working with Weymouth College to deliver the equality best practice fair at the college for the second year running. Organising and facilitating the One World Festival in Dorchester, this event was attended by families from Weymouth & Portland and the event promote diversity through music, dance and food. Continuing to provide an advocacy service for people who experience race related issues; two people from Weymouth have been supported in the last year. Working in partnership with Sustainable Food Partnership to successfully apply to the Big Lottery ‘Celebrate’ Fund to deliver the ‘Diverse Neighbourhoods Project’ delivering events across Pan- Dorset including one in Weymouth & Portland, this event will be an opportunity to celebrate diversity and better understand different cultures. Successfully applying for funding for a Bengali-speaking community consultant to develop a relationship with the Weymouth Mosque. Working with the Community Planning & Development Team to improve social cohesion in the Melcombe Regis area. This work will continue into the 2017-18 year.
13 A significant proportion of the core funding for Dorset Race Equality Council is provided by local authorities and Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group, as such a joint grant agreement between Dorset Race Equality Council and Bournemouth Borough Council, Poole Borough Council, North Dorset District Council, West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council exists. The services covered by this joint agreement are to: Act as an independent third party reporting centre for BME people who experience prejudice and discrimination, and provide a signposting service to those affected by such prejudice and discrimination. Work with the community and voluntary sector and statutory partners to promote the participation of BME people in Dorset life. Page 337 Challenge and provide strategic support to statutory agencies in the delivery of the race equality agenda
14 During 2016-17, each grant partner contributed the following;
Funding Partner Amount Bournemouth Borough Council £20,000 Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group £20,000 Poole Borough Council £14,000 North Dorset District Council £1,750 West Dorset District Council £1,845 Weymouth & Portland Borough Council £2,000 Total £59,595
15 The terms of the agreement will include the following: responsibilities of the councils and the recipient, the grant amount, duration and payment schedule, use and payment of the grant, monitoring and reporting, publicity, grant termination, waiver and variation and complaint and dispute resolution.
16 Six monthly monitoring meetings take place between partner representatives and Dorset Race Equality Council, where monitoring reports are discussed and priorities identified.
Implications
Corporate Plan Empowering Thriving and Inclusive Communities Improving Quality of Life
Financial 17 A grant of £2,000 is requested for 2017-18. There is currently no budget available for the grant therefore if approved the request for funding would need to be fed into the 2017-18 budget process. The grant would be managed by the Community Planning & Development Team.
Equalities
18 The provision of council funding to Dorset Race Equality Council will enable people to access advice and support and were they feel they have received a poor service or have been treated differently because of their race, ethnicity, faith and/or belief.
19 The provision of council funding will also ensure that Weymouth & Portland Borough Council continues to meet its general duty as part of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Risk Management (including Health & Safety) Page 338 20 There may be a risk that the Council could be challenged for failing to exercise its equalities duties under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
21 Without funding from the local authorities the core work of Dorset Race Equality Council would not be able to continue. This would mean that, in addition to victim support, advice and training, some valuable project work would be lost.
Human Resources 22 The Community Planning & Development Team support the work of Dorset REC, including attending the joint funder meetings.
Consultation and Engagement 23 Group Leaders of Weymouth & Portland Borough Council have been consulted with this report in line with the Council’s Discretionary Grants, Loans and Subsidies Policy.
24 The Joint funders listed in paragraph 6 of this report, are aware of this request being put forward. The interim Chief Executive Officer of Dorset REC has had sight of this committee report.
Appendices Appendix 1: Weymouth & Portland Borough Council – Discretionary Grants, Loans & Subsidies Policy.
Appendix 2: Data profile of Weymouth & Portland
Background Papers A range of information about Dorset Race Equality Council, including their recent annual report and financial information is available online at http://www.dorsetrec.org.uk/
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: S Ward-Rice Telephone: 01305 252423 Email: [email protected]
Page 339 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1 Weymouth & Portland Borough Council
DISCRETIONARY GRANTS, LOANS & SUBSIDIES POLICY
POLICY STATEMENT:
It is the policy of this council to consider awarding grants, loans and subsidies, upon application, to ‘not for profit’ organisations, subject to its limited budgets.
1) DEFINITIONS
1.1 A ‘grant’ is a non-repayable payment made by the council to an organisation.
1.2 A ‘loan’ is a repayable payment made by the council to an organisation. Loans may incur a repayable interest charge.
1.3 A ‘subsidy’ is allowing the use of a council service(s) or asset(s) at a discount. The discount can be up to 100%.
1.4 ‘Organisation’ in this policy will normally refer to ‘not for profit’ or charitable organisations only.
2) GENERAL
2.1 The contribution made by many organisations to the well-being of the local community is recognised by the Council as important to our society. The purpose of any grant, loan or subsidy given by the council is to support initiatives in the local community which help to achieve the council’s Corporate Priorities.
2.2 This policy has been written to explain the main details of the council’s approach to grants, loans and subsidies. Please read it carefully before making an application.
3) EXCLUSIONS
3.1 Mandatory grants, loans or subsidies are not covered by this policy.
3.2 Monies or subsidies given to individuals (eg benefits or Disabled Facilities Grants) are not covered by this policy.
3.3 The administration of discretionary rate relief is not covered by this policy.
3.4 Property leases are not covered by this policy.
4) CONDITIONS OF FUNDING
4.1 Applications must clearly demonstrate, at the time of application, a link to at least one of the council’s Corporate Priorities, which can be found in its current Corporate Plan.
4.2 Applications must clearly demonstrate, at the time of application, how the grant, loan or subsidy will be of benefit to Weymouth & Portland.
4.3 Applications will be considered for day-to-day running expenses (including staffing costs) and/or one-off projects.
Version 3, 02/10/2012 WPBC Grants, LoansPage and 341 Subsidies Policy 4.4 Applications will not be considered from organisations intending to support or oppose any particular political party or to discriminate against any section of the local, national or international community.
4.5 Applications will not normally be considered from organisations operated as a business to make a profit or surplus.
4.6 Ongoing commitment to awarding grants, loans or subsidies in future years will not normally be made, other than those covered by a Service Level Agreement (SLA) as detailed in 4.7 below.
4.7 Grants or loans of £1,000 or more, which are to be annually recurring or for which the funds will last more than 12 months, must be covered by a formal SLA between the council and the recipient. No single SLA can last more than 4 years.
4.8 All applicants must either have an equality and diversity policy or statement, or agree to comply with the Dorset Equality Scheme 2012-15, to which the council is signed up. Agreement by the applicant is automatic upon their acceptance of the grant, loan or subsidy.
4.9 Where the grant, loan or subsidy will include/affect young people, the applicant must either have a child protection policy or statement, or agree to comply with the council’s Child Protection Policy. Agreement by the applicant is automatic upon their acceptance of the grant, loan or subsidy.
4.10 If an application is made for assistance in covering staffing costs either in part or in full, job descriptions for the posts to be partly or fully covered must be supplied to the council before funding is released.
4.11 There is no dedicated grants, loans and subsidies budget, and due to the council’s tight finances, each application will be assessed on its own merits and considered along with other applications. To ensure as fair a distribution as possible, the council will take into account the amount and frequency of any previous awards given to the organisation.
4.12 Due account will be taken of the extent to which funding has been sought or secured from other sources or own fund-raising activities.
4.13 The Council may make the award of any grant, loan or subsidy subject to such additional conditions and requirements, as it considers appropriate.
5) PROCEDURE FOR APPLICANTS
5.1 Generally, applications can be made at any time of the year. However, the service receiving the request may have its own timescales which will need adhering to. It is the applicant’s responsibility to check if deadlines are in place. No guarantee can be made regarding speed of payment if approved.
5.2 For grants or loans over £1,000, proof of expenditure must be provided to the council wherever possible.
5.3 Any organisation receiving a grant, loan or subsidy will be expected to acknowledge the council’s contribution on all publicity (including online) and printed material.
5.4 In the event, for whatever reason, of the grant, loan or subsidy not being used, in part or in full, a full explanation shall be submitted to the Council within one year of the award being made. The remaining balance of the grant or loan must be repaid to the council immediately.
5.5 The Council reserves the right to reclaim any award in the event of it not being used for the purpose specified on the application form.
Version 3, 02/10/2012 WPBC Grants,Page Loans 342 and Subsidies Policy South Dorset Revenues & Benefits Partnership
Consultation Report DRAFT
Name of research Council Tax Support Scheme No. of responses 144 2017/18 Consultation
Date started 27/09/16 Date closed 22/11/16
Purbeck District Council, West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are each reviewing their Council Tax Support scheme for working age applicants in their area. The councils are proposing changes that would bring their schemes in line with the changes made by Central Government in Housing Benefit and Universal Credit.
This consultation exercise was undertaken to obtain feedback on the changes being proposed. This feedback will be considered by the individual councils when determining their 2017/18 scheme.
The consultation provided an opportunity for respondents to give their views on 3 proposals:
Removing the Family Premium for all new working age applicants Reducing backdating to one month Reducing the period for which a person can be absent from Great Britain and still receive Council Tax Support to four weeks
The consultation questionnaire is included as appendix 1.
The consultation was open for a period of 8 weeks. It was available as an online questionnaire, with paper copies being available at the district and borough council offices in Purbeck, Dorchester, and Weymouth.
During this period the consultation was promoted via press releases, the dorsetforyou.com consultation tracker, social media, and council e-newsletters. A letter was also sent by Revenues and Benefits to all stakeholders informing them of the consultation. 1
Page 343 There were 144 consultation responses. 141 of these were received online, and 3 as paper submissions.
Research Findings This report provides the results in relation to the three councils. Comments are included in full and unedited.
Please indicate which council’s scheme you are commenting on Over half (56%) of respondents to the consultation were commenting in relation to West Dorset, just under a quarter (24%) in relation to Weymouth & Portland, and just under a fifth (19%) in relation to Purbeck. Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on (144 responses)
Purbeck District Council (27) 19%
West Dorset District Council (82) 57%
Weymouth & Portland Borough Council 24% (35)
Proposal 1 – Removing the Family Premium for all new working age applicants
Purbeck To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposed change to the scheme?
2
Page 344 Of the 26 respondents who answered this question in relation to the Purbeck scheme, just over a third (35%) strongly disagreed with the proposal to remove the family premium for all new working age applicants, and a further 12% disagreed (meaning 47% disagreed to some extent). 38% of respondents agreed with the proposal to some extent (19% agree, 19% strongly agree). To what extent do you agree or disagree with this propose... for Please Netindicate Support which = minus council 9% scheme you are commenting on=Purbeck District Council (26 responses)
Strongly agree (5) 19%
Agree (5) 19%
Neither agree or disagree (3) 12%
Disagree (3) 12%
Strongly disagree (9) 35%
Don't know (1) 4%
If you disagree or disagree strongly, what alternative would you propose? Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Purbeck scheme.
Reduce the amount of financial support you give to those able to work that do not work and help the families who do actually work and give something back to the local community rather than consistently hammering them for more money whilst those not working are laughing their way to new luxuries! take back to the days when any one on benefits do not have to pay council tax or rent , saves all the fluffing around in trying to tell us you are saving us money and you still getting the same Anyone who recieves support at present needs it . I am against any system that would leave anyone worse off than they are at present . An alternative would be that the super rich pay their taxes and then there is more money available to
3
Page 345 support the poor. pay cuts for the top flight management ,less "twinning" with other countries, its only an excuse for a party for you guys. There needs to be a gradual reduction of support in relevance to income received.when of working age expenses incurred can't be estimated hence could male working too costly and it reverse poverty. Stop council tax benefit benefit for the rich with second homes make them pay full council tax To take into account those lone parents on low incomes not receiving Housing Benefit or Universal Credit (ie receiving child/working tax credit) Means test the pensioners' benefits, make wealhty pensioners pay more council tax. Double tax second/holiday homes.
Please provide any additional comments about this proposal Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Purbeck scheme.
People who has no jobs , and on benefits , you say this is what we got to live on , yet from that 74.00 a week you are taking more out to pay for rent and council tax , then you take money from our kids who are working , it should be just the person who applies for benefits , that why the applicants wont make any different, it will go up every year , if you are not working , then help them not squeeze more money out of them and their children who are or might be helping with money problems . Focus should be on what a person can do encourage return to work and possibly assist with budgeting. I operated a project in Birmingham twenty years ago where we employed job coaches who supported people new into employment for a period to give them advice and confidence to maintain their employment. aim for the long term as it is more cost effective. Just because someone is living in their own home (I'd not receiving housing benefit) doesn't mean they are not in a position to need support. It is NOT FAIR that working age people with or without families have to subsidise the rich folk who have retired to this area and then get endless unmeans-tested benefits (both financial and in kind). It does not encourage work when there IS NO WORK FOR HALF OF THE YEAR. You are just punishing the ones you should be encouraging, otherwise young people will leave the area and there will be no-one to wipe the backsides of all these wealthy, selfish BREXIT voting crumblies. And there will be no plucky hardworking foreigners to come and do it for us.
4
Page 346 West Dorset To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposed change to the scheme? Of the 82 respondents who answered this question in relation to the West Dorset scheme, just under half (47%) agreed with the proposal to some extent (20% strongly agree, 27% agree). Whilst 37% disagreed to some extent (10% disagree, 27% strongly disagree). To what extent do you agree or disagree with this propose... for Please Netindicate Support which = plus council 10% scheme you are commenting on=West Dorset District Council (82 responses)
Strongly agree (16) 20%
Agree (22) 27%
Neither agree or disagree (12) 15%
Disagree (8) 10%
Strongly disagree (22) 27%
Don't know (2) 2%
If you disagree or disagree strongly, what alternative would you propose? Respondents made the following comments in relation to the West Dorset scheme.
That the council reduce costs elsewhere such as the type of expenses their staff claim, and a reduction in the wages for top level of management. withdraw councillor allowances keep family premium when assessing applicable amount Off set the cost by reducing the amount of support that goes to pensioners by making this means tested. keep as at present. The vulnerable should not have to pay for the councils' administrative complexities 5
Page 347 Find cuts elsewhere, not from the most vulnerable in society or raise Council Tax Raising council tax above the current threshold for high band properties so more income is generated. I think you should give children free transport in Weymouth instead. KEEP THE FAMILY PREMIUM I would advocate you eliminate Dog Wardens and also reduce staff at recycling centres. I believe this would help to fund the £17.45 allowance. Maybe also library vans. Make savings elsewhere ALL households with children should b protected from any reductions in CTS. Lobbying Government to stop cutting critical finances to local Government by making sure that the 'super rich' are investigated for tax evasion as vigorously as benefits claimants. That Council Tax should be used to support, as now, all those who qualify for such payments. Protest more strongly to government about the reduction in central government grant, which has led to this situation. This Conservative government might (just) listen to protests from Conservative local councillors. It needs to make a reality check on what is happening on the ground. Any money regularly received money should be included as an income. Remove full support from those on pension credit to reverse the higher support for pensioners. the status quo no change Keep it as it is. Keep as now-no change No changes, keep as present
Please provide any additional comments about this proposal Respondents made the following comments in relation to the West Dorset scheme.
Many families claim help with costs because they have insufficient money to live on, even when outgoings have been reduced to a minimum. To reduce the amount of help that is offered will have a significant impact on many families which will affect their health and potentially the ability to keep their home. Seems crazy that people with children are having their benefits cut and thaeir council tax support cut. Seems like a lose, lose situation!! I don't understand your explanation
6
Page 348 It is in line with the Tory government's approach to savings ie taking money from those who can least afford it It would be useful to understand what lobbying (if any) WDDC councillors have done to central government about the change in both the 2013 and the general changes in benefits. Raising a child is expensive procedure, do not need to be made harder for parents. Everybody irrespective of any personal issue should contribute towards the overall council tax bill,even people with D.L.A. or receiving L.H.A.or any benefit should contribute a proportionate amount into the pot as all the services that the Dorset county council and local council provide are available to everybody and alot of people on low incomes or disability use them but don,t pay Families cannot afford the extra expenses. If they are entitled to benefits they are already struggling. Child poverty in this country is already an issue that needs addressing. Families in receipt of CTS r amongst the poorest in our community & should not b subjected to further cut in income. Once cannot imagine that anyone who's had to go through the gruelling task of applying for Housing benefits hasn't already had their means tested and retested so where £17.45 per week may sound like a paltry sum to many, it actually means the difference between keeping a roof over the heads of others. Eviction costs society more than £17.45 a week. Whatever the purported arguments in favour of changing the present system - to make it more in line with the government's support schemes - the true reason for the proposed changes is the lessen the charge upon the district council's funds. As these funds are principally generated through the widest method of sharing the burden - the Council Tax (or Community Charge) - it seems obvious that that fund is better able to afford such support than the poorest and most challenged members of society, those who qualify for Housing Benefit. In other words, the rate of Council Tax should be increased to maintain Housing Benefit at its present level. imposing more hardship on the vulnerable is in keeping with this government but is morally wrong I am happy to support families with children under school age. But once the children are at school I believe the parents should be given an incentive to work.
7
Page 349 For a council that has spent so much on new offices to propose this small cut/ savings makes no sense especially when the 'small' cut becomes a big financial blow to those affected, the weaker and more vulnerable members of our community. Local government does not need to follow national government, that is why we have local government. This is a cut to working age families which will affect the " just managing" families Mrs May says she is concerned about. This is a cut to working age families and will affect the "just managing" families the Government says they are concerned about + see Q12
Weymouth & Portland To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposed change to the scheme? Of the 36 respondents who answered this question in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme, 40% agreed with the proposal to some extent (17% strongly agree, 23% agree). Whilst 34% disagreed to some extent (11% disagree, 23% strongly disagree). To what extent do you agree or disagree with this propose... for Please Netindicate Support which = plus council 6% scheme you are commenting on=Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (35 responses)
Strongly agree (6) 17%
Agree (8) 23%
Neither agree or disagree (5) 14%
Disagree (4) 11%
Strongly disagree (8) 23%
Don't know (4) 11%
8
Page 350 If you disagree or disagree strongly, what alternative would you propose? Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme.
Keeping this the same Take higher Tax's from the wealthy to make society more fair! equal council tax for every houshold Taxing corporations such as Amazon, Google , Vodaphone properly to expand UK tax base so that the poor do not have to pay for banker's bonuses and for bail out of banks Allow the Family Premium to remain for households with at least one child under the age of 5 Introduce 10year rule to paying into our tax systems before being able to claim any benefits. For someone on a low income needing support from the state £17.45 is a lot of money to have taken out of your meager income.
Please provide any additional comments about this proposal Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme.
Allow parents to feed thier children working people already pay higher tax, i feel this proposal doesnt encourage people to work You do not explain, if the cuts will affect Single Parents, Part-time jobs Same for nhs 10 year qualifying paying into system
Proposal 2 – Reducing backdating to one month
Purbeck To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposed change to the scheme? Of the 27 respondents who answered this question in relation to the Purbeck scheme, 48% agreed with the proposal to some extent (15% strongly agree, 33% agree). Whilst 41% disagreed to some extent (15% disagree, 26% strongly disagree).
Net Support = plus 7%
9
Page 351 To what extent do you agree or disagree with this propose... for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=Purbeck District Council (27 responses)
Strongly agree (4) 15%
Agree (9) 33%
Neither agree or disagree (3) 11%
Disagree (4) 15%
Strongly disagree (7) 26%
Don't know (-)
If you disagree or disagree strongly, what alternative would you propose? Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Purbeck scheme. As before making easy for yourself , not thinking about the people , Anyone who is entitled to support should be able to recieve it and if they were unable to claim at the time ,and can show show why ,then it needs to be backdated. the alternative is to keep it as it is . Combine with all councils to reject that. Most people are not made aware of the impact of Council tax costs And while preparing for work forget to apply for council tax reduction. The money lost for the up to six months couldmqkeorbreak a persons aspirations. Better communication between departments would be more encouraging. If not backdating at all at least three months is better than nobackdating.a s 3 months, one month is hardly enough time to gather any relivant information. Keep the period to 6 months or else give a reduced amount for up to 6 months. As some people might not be aware or be told of the benefit at the time or have the means or inability to make the claim on-line then these groups should be granted an exception from the rule and allow backdating for the same as the current period. See above comments
10
Page 352 Please provide any additional comments about this proposal Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Purbeck scheme. Does it help us ,NO I used to work for DWP job centre and was shocked when some advisors openly commented how they deliberately didn't provide all necessary information to job seekers."Let' s see how so and so fall flat on their faces". Only 20% of advisors were decent and personally my contact with Purbeck District Council left me stressed as they also prided themselves in not giving all information ifnotasking the right questions. Felt treated with arrogance and superiority rather than kindness and courtesy. If the method for claiming is complicated I would not be surprised if people did not claim for a few months if they had other difficulties in their lives. If they are entitled to the money then 6 months does not seem to be too long for a backdated claim. See above comments
West Dorset To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposed change to the scheme? Of the 82 respondents who answered this question in relation to the West Dorset scheme, 55% agreed with the proposal to some extent (24% strongly agree, 31% agree). Whilst 33% disagreed to some extent (10% disagree, 23% strongly disagree).
Net Support = plus 22%
11
Page 353 To what extent do you agree or disagree with this propose... for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=West Dorset District Council (82 responses)
Strongly agree (20) 24%
Agree (25) 31%
Neither agree or disagree (8) 10%
Disagree (8) 10%
Strongly disagree (19) 23%
Don't know (2) 2%
If you disagree or disagree strongly, what alternative would you propose? Respondents made the following comments in relation to the West Dorset scheme.
One month is insufficient for many people, why not reduce from 6 months to 2 months which gives a little more leeway whilst still reducing the permissable time to backdate. Keep it to the time limit at the moment. again, take away councillor allowances If people are due the amount that they were not told about, they should get it backdated for more than a month, a formal appeals process would be satisfactory. If their circumstances were the same 6 months prior to claiming then they are entitled to the support keep as at present. Entitlement should not be removed if the applicant was simply not able to apply for this benefit at an earlier time Leave the system as it is Local government can set the standard, not comply with its own cruel erosion Raise council tax (same as previous question) - more money in the system to allow a better cushion to those in very difficult circumstances.
12
Page 354 If people cannot claim straight away and have a good reason for not doing so, it doesn't mean they shouldn't get it backdated. As I understand it, at the moment the council is struggling to process the current claims in good time (at least 4 weeks behind) which seems one rule for the council without penalty and another rule for the needy, do it now or miss out, without exception. 6 month 'rule' should remain for exceptional cases e.g. Mental ill health & physical ill health conditions preventing timely application, marital/partner relationship breakdown. Assessing each case individually a proportionately. That the presentt system should remain unchanged. 3 mths if no alternative otherwise leave it as is See above - of all the miserable (and minor) cheese-paring savings involved, this must take the biscuit ! There is enough knowledge about the benefits available, if people are not going to apply when they should then the rest of us should not be donating more to them! Each case should be investigated to determine the delay in claiming for Tax support. Reduction in the support for pensioners would allow a fairer acknowledgement of difficulties of working age claimants by allowing 3 month backdating. leave it to the 6 months no change No change at all. KEEP AS PRESENT-NO CHANGE No change, keep as at present
Please provide any additional comments about this proposal Respondents made the following comments in relation to the West Dorset scheme.
This will cause anxiety to many people which in turn will affect health and ability to work. As long as the claim is made on time and the calculations are carried out in the time scale I can't see the problem. As long as there are no hold ups out of the claimants control, as if that is the case they will be left in a very difficult financial situation Why should those people new to the benefits system loose out, there are many reasons why things should be backdated that are beyond the control of the claimant at the time. Stop depriving those who really need help & the money of it. If you are in the position of having to claim then suddenly you are vulnerable,
13
Page 355 & until that time people really have no clue how hard it is going to be already without adding to their plateful assess reason for delay in support request - e.g. could be a victim of domestic violence. Are the 'rules' about backdated claims clear enough? See previous answers. Watch the film 'I, Daniel Blake' to see the effects of benefit cuts or visit any CAB It seems extremely mean-spirited. A month is a very short time if you have a chaotic or disrupted life, and this may be for reasons beyond your own control. So the most vulnerable are likely to lose out to the greatest degree. there IS NO FLEXIBILITY IN THIS NEW PROPOSAL, SOME PEOPLE STRUGGLE ON NOT KNOWING THEY COULD HAVE CLAIMED, FOR INSTANCE THE NEWLEY WIDOWED PARENT. yet again every person should PAY SOME Council tax,it would reduce the burden on those that are currently subsidising the non-grafters. tried to put that politely. 1 month could be the default position but where the applicant could provide a "good reason" why they had not been able to make a claim earlier then up to 6 months should be allowed. A limited number of cases may need discretionary treatment I suspect that more often than not, the delay is either caused through misinformation or complete lack of knowledge that such a benefit exists. The present level of expenditure on Housing Benefit should include all the present methods by which applicants can be protected from poverty and homelessness. Council Tax payers are the best people to give effect to such charitable policies. the proof is on the claimant if request is agreed then it is accepted that there is a need. Think there needs to be some flexibility if a claimant is seriously physically ill & unable to claim within a month - if in hospital for example, & likewise re some mental health issues - severe depression/anxiety etc as people don't always get support services in place within a month. This all adds to burdens on the struggling working age group It takes a while ,when circumstances change, to find out what help is available and to claim it . One month is not long enough. When circumstances change leading to a loss of income it takes a while to find & obtain help. 4 weeks is insufficient + see Q12
14
Page 356 Weymouth & Portland To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposed change to the scheme? Of the 35 respondents who answered this question in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme, 54% agreed with the proposal to some extent (23% strongly agree, 31% agree). Whilst 18% disagreed to some extent (9% disagree, 9% strongly disagree).
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this propose... for Please Netindicate Support which = plus council 36% scheme you are commenting on=Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (35 responses)
Strongly agree (8) 23%
Agree (11) 31%
Neither agree or disagree (5) 14%
Disagree (3) 9%
Strongly disagree (3) 9%
Don't know (5) 14%
If you disagree or disagree strongly, what alternative would you propose? Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme.
So even though they were entitled to claim, and they have provided you with evidence to show why they were unable to claim at that time, you will not allow them to backdate. This doesnt seem right. If they provide a legitemate reason for the delay, then I dont see why CTS couldnt be paid from when they were entitled. Afterall, new applicants to CTS have normally just undergone a massive change in their lives, perhaps losing their job, family breakdown, illness and having to make your application within a month may be problematic for those already struggling.
15
Page 357 This will hit the poorest and most vulnerable the worst 3 months If the period must be reduced them perhaps 3 months would suffice. From things that I have heard, applications can get delayed and even lost because of what seems to be a permanent backlog in processing them which all contributes to them not being received on time.. There is also the problem of a claimant having left one property and taking up residence in another. From what I hear, this process can take up to 3 months for a claim to be sorted. There should be no backdating. All systems should be up to date with the computer systems that are in place The award for Council Tax relief should start from the date the claim was submitted even if this a long process.
Please provide any additional comments about this proposal Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme.
I was not offered this option when I claimed Council Tax Support ( I didn't know I was entitled to it at the time and should have been claiming for over a year.) If you are going to enforce people to apply within a month of being entitled to the support, are you also going to ensure that they receive a decision and are started being awarded council tax during a similar timescale. It would be unfair to say to people you cannot backdate your application further than one month, but we can then sit on it for 3 months before making a decision. there may be some exceptional circumstances, but I can see no reason why an applicant would need six months to make a claim. I would suggest two months maximum. I agree only because it makes sense for it to be the same as housing benefit, but I had disagreed with that change to HB as I feel one month may not be enough in certain circumstances. Does the change to HB backdating allow for any extenuating circumstances? If it does, those circumstances must also be permitted for council tax support If this is to go ahead, then some form of acknowledgement of receipt of a claim should be devised and other safeguards put in place to ease the process..
16
Page 358 Proposal 3 – Reducing the period for which a person can be absent from Great Britain and still receive Council Tax Support to four weeks
Purbeck To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposed change to the scheme? Of the 27 respondents who answered this question in relation to the Purbeck scheme, 67% agreed with the proposal to some extent (30% strongly agree, 37% agree). Whilst 19% disagreed to some extent (15% disagree, 4% strongly disagree). To what extent do you agree or disagree to the proposed c... for Please Netindicate Support which = plus council 48% scheme you are commenting on=Purbeck District Council (27 responses)
Strongly agree (8) 30%
Agree (10) 37%
Neither agree or disagree (3) 11%
Disagree (4) 15%
Strongly disagree (1) 4%
Don't know (1) 4%
If you disagree or disagree strongly, what alternative would you propose? Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Purbeck scheme. NO , if we are in title for the support , why should we reply , more work for us to do , less for you I think there needs to be consideration of why the person is away for so long . Is it to be with a sick relative ? An alternative is more compasionate grounds on which a person can be absent for longer . Keep as is! That should pay it all 3 months. 17
Page 359
Please provide any additional comments about this proposal Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Purbeck scheme. what is good for one is good for another , exceptions for certain armed forces and mariners , best to get a job with them this should be against economic migrants I wasn't aware of this present rule again misinformation given as was told it was four weeks and as I had to fly out of UK to look after parent to support brother andgivehim a break. I could have stayed for 2 months. If a retired person were to visit a child in, say New Zealand,for an extended period, one month is to short a time. An absence due to a family illness or some other emergency should not be included within the new proposal.
West Dorset To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposed change to the scheme? Of the 82 respondents who answered this question in relation to the West Dorset scheme, 78% agreed with the proposal to some extent (44% strongly agree, 34% agree). Whilst 13% disagreed to some extent (6% disagree, 7% strongly disagree). To what extent do you agree or disagree to the proposed c... for Please Netindicate Support which = plus council 65 %scheme you are commenting on=West Dorset District Council (82 responses)
Strongly agree (36) 44%
Agree (28) 34%
Neither agree or disagree (6) 7%
Disagree (5) 6%
Strongly disagree (6) 7%
Don't know (1) 1%
18
Page 360 If you disagree or disagree strongly, what alternative would you propose? Respondents made the following comments in relation to the West Dorset scheme.
There needs to be special circumstances built into this, eg in cases where single person has to be out of area looking after a family member keeping it the same inhumane. makes unfounded assumptions. Exceptions should also be made for anybody who goes abroad to volunteer at charitable projects. But you could add a clause relating to "exceptional circumstances." In owner occupier circumstances to maintain current rules. 13 weeks should be left alone no change Leave it unchanged. the expense of administering the exemptions would eat into whatever savings were made.
Please provide any additional comments about this proposal Respondents made the following comments in relation to the West Dorset scheme.
If someone can be absent for 4 weeks and still get council tax support, but if over 4 weeks then stopped form day of absence - why not round this to a maximum absence of 4 weeks for everyone regarding of length of absence. There would be no confusion then. Definitely agree with this. If people are out of the country for more than 4 weeks then they should NOT be in receipt of council tax support People have family they visit abroad not very often, or partners If a certain amount of poverty means reliance on benefits, then those absent on holiday should not have been able to afford to travel for so long....so should have to reapply. upon investigation/return means testing should reveal any concerns I'd like to see projected figures for the savings and costs of such a change.
Weymouth & Portland To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposed change to the scheme? Of the 35 respondents who answered this question in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme, 77% agreed with the proposal to some extent (46% strongly agree, 31% agree). Whilst 3% disagreed to some extent (0% disagree, 3% strongly disagree).
Net Support = plus 74%
19
Page 361 To what extent do you agree or disagree to the proposed c... for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (35 responses)
Strongly agree (16) 46%
Agree (11) 31%
Neither agree or disagree (4) 11%
Disagree (-)
Strongly disagree (1) 3%
Don't know (3) 9%
If you disagree or disagree strongly, what alternative would you propose? Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme. keeing ti the same on their return there should be a qualifying period of paying into UK tax system(see payslips) of six months before they can claim any benefits
Please provide any additional comments about this proposal Respondents made the following comments in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme.
What if someone was long term sick in hospital voer our 4 week limit, talk about kicking somewhen they are down. You dont state what the position is for people temporarily absent from their homes for more than 4 weeks, but who remain in the UK. What does it mean by saying absent? does going on holiday come under this, and also 4 weeks is that in one block or a total in a given year? this is not clear and needs more clarification or thought!.
20
Page 362 I agree but it needs to be clarified. HB is if a person is absent from Great Britain for more than 4 weeks, but your council tax support wording above is "absent from their homes". It is entirely conceivable that a person could be in hospital, for example, for more than 4 weeks which would make them absent from their home but not from Great Britain. In the hospital example it would be outrageous to cancel a person's support, leaving them with a debt upon discharge from hospital. So, clarify - it absolutely must be clear whether you are talking about absence from home or absence from GB This would prevent those on pensions and benefits from wintering in warmer places where it is cheaper to live whilst still taking advantage of UK benefits. Its stealing from the UK if claiming when not paying in whilst out of our Country
Other comments Please describe any alternative options you would like the council to consider Responses in relation to Purbeck Remove Second Adult Rebate Look at the amount of money you give to those not working but able to work and stop making it harder for those who are working to live a life debt free!!! don't do it more pay cuts for council managers etc, less spending trying to impress . higher tax rates for economic migrants. less hand outs for economic migrants. equal rights for native claimants. higher tax rates on holiday home owners Purbeck District Council operates their own systems and rules and ought to maintain their uniqueness although I haven't been made of it before. Independence is gone. Double tax holiday and second homes. If folk can afford two houses (especially in such an expensive area) then they can afford to pay double council tax to make up for the damage they do to the local economy by removing houses from the residential market. Likewise any pensioner on higher rate tax should pay double council tax, as they can clearly afford it. If folk of working age are claiming this benefit I assume they are on a very low income, and they CAN'T afford it. I'm on a reasonable income and I find it hard.
Responses in relation to West Dorset remove second adult rebate Central Government has made their decisions so those of the worse off in society are going to be even worse off, nothing new there!!
21
Page 363 I feel strongly benefits such as winter heating allowance should be stopped one a person has left this country. I know that these allowances are continued to be paid to people in New Zealand and Australia once they have returned to live in their own countries. When I've queried this in the past I've been told its easier to leave the people on the list & to keep paying them than to remove them!! It is not clear to me if you have reconsidered the % awarded At present, do 2nd home owners pay full council tax? If they don't, I think they should, or smaller communities suffer...these people might use services infrequently, but ought to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure/council operations eg waste disposal, street lighting, police etc, as they are privileged enough to be able to afford a second home, and choose its location because of the local community/area, which will not survive without financial help. The burden of the reduction in support should be spread by making pensioners' support means tested. Wealth is very unevenly distributed in West Dorset. Please do consider doing whatever you legally can to raise Council Tax for those who can afford to pay it. I would gladly pay more Council Tax to improve my local area, but can't because of the central government rules on the cap. It must be time for local government to consider challenging this at national level, because the burden is falling on local government. If it hasn't been done already, a full cost-benefit analysis of what happens to these families if the support is removed - i.e. are they likely to end up costing WDDC or other local bodies more in other forms of support, once in even greater need. Perhaps the savings are not so great when considered in the broader context. Otherwise, no, I realise that there are very few alternatives which don't lead to a different group of people being harmed instead. But that's why seeking more income is the only way forward at this point - there's no real moral alternative and it would be great to see the councillors start to stand up for their constituents properly by pursuing this. We need to support families with children. Transport in Weymouth, Portland and Dorchester is very expensive. Everyday ticket to school it's 11pounds per week per one child. You should think about it. Its great to ask people for comments to these surveys,but in truth Councillors will not implement these positive alternatives because they are a political time bomb. people need to realise that BUDGETS ARE GOING TO BE CUT by central Government and as stated before the shortfall should not be picked up by the few when the many get a free ride on our coat tails.
22
Page 364 As described previously, we all seem to sit back and accept that there are people who are draining the system of much needed taxes. Why is this? I can't believe the voices of councillors and local MPs are useless in the face of central Govt. What's the point of electing them in this case? Get up to Westminster and ask why HMRC is so slow at taking over 4.000 cases of tax avoidance amounting to billions of pounds, to court. And while you're at it, you can ask why the Govt has allowed tax loop holes to appear in the first place. Make no changes. Keep the Family Premium and Backdating parts of the scheme as it is. Keep family premium and up to 6 months backdating as at present
Responses in relation to Weymouth & Portland Remove Second Adult Rebate To help make our society more even/balanced and fair the council must consider the option of raising the cost of council tax for the WEALTHY! this is because there are too many decent hard working people and family's who are struggling to make ends meet! and this new scheme could break them, I am sure that this council does not want to send people out from their homes and onto the streets!? i really would like to see a scheme where working people are being supported. consider people work on low wage if it is cut back to much people will get in the arrears you will have trouble recovering the debt because they will have know money left It seems a little unfair that single people who have well paid jobs, savings etc are still eligible for Council Tax support whilst married couple pensioners who cannot work because of age or disabilities or medical conditions but have savings are not. The rights of UK tax payers have been abused for too long; we need to get tough to balance UK income against expenditure therefore if we haven't enough income we can't give it away without proper authentication and/or rules
Please make any other comments on the scheme Responses in relation to Purbeck Its not really helping the public The real and only reason for the changes are to save, ie avoid spending money. The PM may well scrap this in light of the new announcement, on Oct 1. I obviously needs to involve myself more in the goings on at District level as now feel properly duped through misinformation.
23
Page 365 Please do not ignore lone parents, who are living in their own homes and working, but still need support due to low incomes. I would like to see a one stop shop for people to go to where they can be informed of all of the benefits available to them if the become unemployed or retire. They could also receive assistance in making said claims. Being that all of this is moving online means that you feel that you are now talking to a machine and you are left uncertain as to what is happening in the back ground and where your claim could just be dropping into a deep digital hole to which you get no response. This also goes in line when trying to call the various Government departments when you are left on hold for hours and in the end you just give up. Gradually we will all end up as non persons... Introduce a capital limit lower than £16,000 to reduce CTS expenditure. It makes sense to simplify as much as possible. Too !much time and money is already spent on dealing with variations It is designed to make the poor even poorer and will bring much worry and misery.
Responses in relation to West Dorset Benefits and assistance hardly offer enough to live on, by reducing the support offered will just place claimants in a worse situation I believe the proposed changes are sensible and in line with those made by Central Government for Housing Benefit and Universal Credit. What changes if any would there be for single people with no dependants on Jobseakers? Especially those with health or mental health issues who struggle to gain work but are refused ESA support Introduce a capital limit lower than £16,000 to reduce CTS expenditure. Without the support I get from the council (am on income related ESA), I would not be able to pay. I really need LCTS and am very grateful for it. In general, the vulnerable should not have to pay for the councils' administrative complexities, albeit that these have been created by central government. The proposals have a rational logic, and the efficiency of a parallel system is clear. There will be savings from doing this, compared to not doing it. However there will be no end to that logic, and effectively it is not local control - central government is driving local policy. How then is that really a change from the system previously? Scheme is OK, if you are not on time It's your fault, if you have money to go abroad, just pay your council tax in full. Always can ask for help just respect the rules.
24
Page 366 IMPROVE AWARENESS OF ANY HELP THERE IS FROM CHARITIES OR VOLUNTEERS SUCH AS CAB FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS HELP WITH RULES AND FORM FILLING, MUCH OF WHICH IS DAUNTING TO PEOPLE IN DISTRESS. Please take into account when the desire appears to b to align CTS rules with HB rules that not all CTS applicants r in rented accommodation, but some reside in their own homes. With mortgages if not owned outright... You haven't explained how making the changes saves money. When the time comes to sell this proposal to residents it would help if you could give examples showing exactly how cost savings flow from alignment. You need to demonstrate administrative savings not just the savings in benefits paid out otherwise it seems unfair. In principle I would also be happy to agree any future alignments with housing benefit and Universal Credit There are many people claiming benefits who know how to use the system It is extremely annoying for people who pay their own way, knowing that they are subsidising these spongers Rant over! I do think that the forms one has to fill in are, on many occasions, ambiguous and not always clear You have the discretion to tailor the scheme to the needs of your area. That was one of the purposes of the 2013 delegation by the Government. You do not have to follow the Government`s changes which themselves have been opposed by many groups including the Labour Party. For reasons of administrative efficiency you propose to cut the help given to struggling families. We in the Labour Party do not support this. We believe the cost of running 2 systems , Council Tax Relief alongside HB & UC will not be major and is a price worth paying to continue this vital support to just managing families.The Council has £54 million in investments and found money for its offices, it can fund this cost. Government delegation of Council Tax Relief to Councils gives local discretion and therefore freedom not to follow Government changes. You don't have to do this. Administrative efficiency is an inadequate reason to cut the help given to just managing families. Any cost of running 2 systems - council tax relief alongside HB & universal credit (which I suspect will be small) can be covered from the same pot from which money was found for the new council offices of WDDC's £54million investments
25
Page 367 Responses in relation to Weymouth & Portland What is vital is that frontline staff are properly informed, empowered to make decisions and polite to their customers - whatever their circumstances. Staff MUST be non-judgemental and able to offer advice and support. I was shocked by the attitude of staff when I attended an appointment with someone I was mentoring - very patronising, and would not entertain the idea that they might have made a mistake (they had.) Only when I challenged their attitude did they investigate and return full of apologies at the error which had meant letters to my client threatening court action when they did not owe any money. I think you should work at speeding up the decision making process for new applicants. When I lost my job I had no money, but yet I had to continue to pay council tax at the full rate for a period of 2 months whilst a decision was made on my case. It should have been straight forward as I was too ill to work and was claiming ESA, but yet I had to borrow money to pay my council tax bill before it was assessed. Telling me on the telephone, its ok, it will be backdated, hardly helps, when you take your direct debit from my bank account wiping out all my ESA benefit leaving me with nothing for food. The council needs to consider other options that do not target the working poor! we already pay tax, we dont rely on benefits. we pay full price to support our children's education, buses, rent etc. increasing taxes, fees for us will result more people to stop working or changes from full time to part time to part time inorder to reduce expenses. Introduce a capital limit lower than £16,000 to reduce CTS expenditure. N/a It's great that these systems are now being sensibly reviewed, its about time we looked after UK residents who have paid in all their lives and now struggle to be able to live a good life
The council has a duty to take into account the impact of decisions on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 (age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation). Are there any positive or negative impacts that you believe the council should take into account in the decision making process in relation to protected characteristics? If so, please describe below, and suggest any ways in which the council could reduce or remove any potential negative impact or increase any positive impact.
26
Page 368 Responses in relation to Purbeck What is the point , you will just go ahead and do the propose, weather the public wants it all not .....still waiting for lower council tax what was promise!! I think it is time for the Council to look and focus on positive impacts rather than always negative. The Council needs to inspire and encourage residents, treat them with respect, provide timely information and look to a bright future as per the lead of our new PM and government! I dont know enough about the potential impacts upon the various groups to comment further. see above If this applies only to those of working age, surely it is discriminating against them because of their age? Why should the crumblies get everything on a plate when economically active people get so little?
Responses in relation to West Dorset Everybody should be considered on an individual basis, and by preventing discrimination against those with needs, you are potentially discriminating against those without any or who choose not to be labelled and therefore do not disclose. People with health or mental health issues who are deemed fit for work but are unable to gain employment should continue to get as much support as possible. A number of those people do unpaid voluntary work and work hard, but constantly fail at interview. Age - obviously - this is clearly going to affect younger sections of society (including children) more than others. The council needs to demonstrate why it is not considering changing the rules for pensioners, for example. (Not that I think this would be desirable, but the current proposal is demonstrably unequal on this ground). You can't miss the fact that families with children are raising new tax payers, and it is good to support them. Mental disability or age might be "good reasons" for not making claims within the default time. Going abroad for medical treatment for a household family member should also be excluded, along with claimants who are unable to return home within four week limit as planned due to unforseen circumstances The impact assessment in aligning CTS rules with HB rules, as described in this proposal, would negatively impact pension age owner occupiers significantly, hard working families with school age children who r also owner occupiers (likely mortgaged), marital/civil partnership owner occupiers, disabled owner
27
Page 369 occupiers I cannot understand how the religious beliefs or sexual orientation can have any relationship to the needs of those to whom the suggested changes (which I assume will come about, whatever woolly-minded liberals like me say) will apply. This political 'correctness' carried the realms of absurdity. the proposals would increase the hardship of most claims this is unacceptable and would increase the poverty of those concerned No Maternity, disability and pregnancy can all impact on speed of application and back dating and reduction to 1 month would adversely affect those with these characteristics.
Responses in relation to Weymouth & Portland Yes I think the council should think about the negative impact on people under the Equality Act 2010, for example age and disability Keep it neutral Although I agree in principle with the proposed changes, primarily because of the streamlining effect with changes to housing benefit, I do think that extra consideration has to be given to those many claimants who are experiencing mental ill-health which is either necessitating their claim or is a result of their straitened circumstances and also to those who have learning difficulties which may impact on their ability to claim in a timely manner. Support services for people in difficulty are being reduced daily and the charities that are replacing state support don't always act in a fully coordinated manner (this is an observation, not a criticism: cuts to funding, data protection and the challenges of engaging with hard-to-reach families makes their task quite impossible). Whilst the rules should be changed in line with the proposals, staff should be given permission to backdate further if they think there is good reason to do so. The council must not take any action under which those who are already the poorest become the hardest hit. The sick and disabled are always easy targets when there are discussions about cost-savings. To place further burdens upon this section of the population is utterly disgusting in this apparently civilised world in which we live. Protected characteristics should be fairly accessed with regard to whether they have paid into UK tax systems prior to any claims All disabled people that are not in any employment should be entitled to a rebate, because most of them would love to able to work but they discriminated against because of a disability. council should protect families
28
Page 370 About You
Are you responding as….? Purbeck Of the 27 respondents who answered in relation to the Purbeck scheme, 59% were responding as a council tax payer, and 44% as someone who receives council tax support.Are you Two responding councillors as...? responded. for Please The respondent indicate whowhich selected ‘other’, identified themselvescouncil scheme as ‘a pensioner’. you are commenting on=Purbeck District Council (27 responses)
Someone who receives council tax 44% support (12)
A council tax payer (16) 59%
A councillor (2) 7%
A business (-)
An organisation (-)
Other (1) 4%
West Dorset Of the 82 respondents who answered in relation to the West Dorset scheme, 74% were responding as a council tax payer, and 24% as someone who receives council tax support. One councillor responded, and one respondent was representing an organisation. Of the two respondents who selected ‘other’, one identified themselves as a “holiday home owner living in Surrey, but responding in my personal capacity as a CAB volunteer”, the other did not specify.
29
Page 371 Are you responding as...? for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=West Dorset District Council (82 responses)
Someone who receives council tax 24% support (20)
A council tax payer (61) 74%
A councillor (1) 1%
A business (-)
An organisation (1) 1%
Other (2) 2%
Weymouth & Portland Of the 34 respondents who answered in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme, 53% were responding as a council tax payer, and 38% as someone who receives council tax support. Two councillors responded, and one respondent was representing a business. Of the four respondents who selected ‘other’, one identified themselves as a “mentor”, one as responding “on behalf of my brother” and the other two did not specify.
30
Page 372 Are you responding as...? for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (34 responses)
Someone who receives council tax 38% support (13)
A council tax payer (18) 53%
A councillor (2) 6%
A business (1) 3%
An organisation (-)
Other (4) 12%
Are you providing your organisation’s official response or a professional view? One respondent was providing an official response in relation to the West Dorset scheme, and one in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme. There were no official responses in relation to the Purbeck scheme, and no respondents were providing a professional view in relation to any of the schemes.
What is the name of your organisation/business? The organisation providing the official response in relation to the West Dorset scheme was Dorchester & District Labour Party.
The business providing an official response in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme did not provide their name.
Which council area do you live in? Responses in relation to the Purbeck scheme: 93% of respondents live in Purbeck District Council area 4% of respondents live in Weymouth & Portland Borough Council area 4% of respondents live in another area of Dorset
31
Page 373 Responses in relation to the West Dorset scheme: 98% of respondents live in West Dorset District Council area 1% of respondents live in Purbeck District Council area 1% of respondents live in Weymouth & Portland Borough Council area
Responses in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme: 97% of respondents live in Weymouth & Portland Borough Council area 1% of respondents live in Purbeck District Council area
Please provide your postcode Purbeck Half of those responding in relation to the Purbeck scheme were from the BH20 postcode area, 23% from the BH19 postcode area, and 14% from the BH16 postcode area. The remaining 14% were from the DT2 and DT5 postcode areas. Postcode area Count % BH16 3 14 BH19 5 23 BH20 11 50 DT2 2 9 DT5 1 5
West Dorset Just over a third of those responding in relation to the West Dorset scheme were from the DT2 postcode area, 28% from the DT1 postcode area, and 15% from the DT6 postcode area. The remaining 22% were from DT3, DT4, DT7, DT8 and DT9 postcode areas. Postcode area Count % DT1 19 28 DT2 23 34 DT3 6 9 DT4 1 1 DT6 10 15 DT7 1 1 DT8 3 4 DT9 5 7
32
Page 374 Weymouth & Portland Just under half of those responding in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme were from the DT4 postcode area, 33% from the DT3 postcode area, and 15% from the DT5 postcode area. One response was eligible. Postcode area Count % DT3 9 33 DT4 13 48 DT5 4 15 eligible 1 4
The following questions were optional.
Which of the following describes your household? Purbeck 46% of those who responded in relation to the Purbeck scheme are couples without dependent children, 31% are from single person households, 12% are from lone parent households, 8% are from families with one or two dependent children and 8% are from households which include someone who is disabled. 4% are from households which includeWhich aof carer. the following describes your household? for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=Purbeck District Council (26 responses)
A family with one or two dependent 8% children (2)
A family with three or more dependent children (-)
A lone parent household (3) 12%
A single person household (8) 31%
A couple without dependent children 46% (12)
A household that includes someone 8% who is disabled (2)
A household that includes a carer (1) 4%
Other (-)
33
Page 375 West Dorset 39% of those who responded in relation to the West Dorset scheme are couples without dependent children, 26% are from single person households, 16% are from households which include someone who is disabled, 10% are from families with one or two dependent children, 8% are from lone parent households, 5% are from households which include a carer.
A further 7% selected ‘other’, with three of these specifying as follows: ‘mental health sufferer on JSA’, ‘single parent, with one dependent daughter over 18 at university’, ‘holidayWhich ofhome the following used for describes letting’. your household? for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=West Dorset District Council (74 responses)
A family with one or two dependent 10% children (7)
A family with three or more dependent children (-)
A lone parent household (6) 8%
A single person household (19) 26%
A couple without dependent children 39% (29)
A household that includes someone 16% who is disabled (12)
A household that includes a carer (4) 5%
Other (5) 7%
Weymouth & Portland 30% of those who responded in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme are from single person households, 21% are couples without dependent children, 15% are from families with one or two dependent children, 12% are from lone parent households, 9% are from households which include someone who is disabled, and 9% are from households which include a carer.
34
Page 376 A further 15% selected ‘other’, with one specifying ‘a household that included someone Which of the following describes your household? for Please indicate which withcouncil learning scheme difficulties you are commenting and mental on=Weymouth health issues’. & Portland Borough Council (33 responses)
A family with one or two dependent 15% children (5) A family with three or more dependent children (-)
A lone parent household (4) 12%
A single person household (10) 30%
A couple without dependent children 21% (7)
A household that includes someone 9% who is disabled (3)
A household that includes a carer (-)
Other (5) 15%
Are you likely to be prospective parents (through pregnancy, paternity, adoption or surrogacy) on or after 1 April 2017 (proposal 1 may affect your benefit if you make a claim on or after this date)?
Purbeck 89% of respondents in relation to the Purbeck scheme do not consider themselves likely to be prospective parents on or after 1 April 2017. 8% say they are likely to be prospective parents at that time.
35
Page 377 Are you likely to be prospective parents (through pregnan... for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=Purbeck District Council (26 responses)
Yes (2) 8%
No (23) 89%
Don't know (-)
Prefer not to say (1) 4%
West Dorset 91% of respondents in relation to the West Dorset scheme do not consider themselves likely to be prospective parents on or after 1 April 2017. 3% say they are likely to be Are you likely to be prospective parents (through pregnan... for Please prospectiveindicate which parents council at scheme that time. you are commenting on=West Dorset District Council (74 responses)
Yes (2) 3%
No (67) 91%
Don't know (2) 3%
Prefer not to say (3) 4%
36
Page 378 Weymouth & Portland 91% of respondents in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme do not consider themselvesAre you likely likely to be to prospective be prospective parents parents (through onpregnan... or after for 1 Please April 2017. 3% say they are likelyindicate to be which prospective council scheme parents you at are that commenting time. on=Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (34 responses)
Yes (-)
No (32) 94%
Don't know (1) 3%
Prefer not to say (1) 3%
Which of these activities best describes what you are doing at present?
Purbeck 35% of those responding in relation to the Purbeck scheme are working full time, 27% are working part time, 12% are unemployed and available for work, 8% are permanently sick or disabled, 8% are retired, 8% are caring for someone and 4% are doing something else. This respondent specified ‘Anglican Mon stipendiary priest’.
37
Page 379 Which of these activities best describes what you are doi... for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=Purbeck District Council (26 responses)
Working full time (30 or more hours per week) (9) 35%
Working part time (under 30 hours per week) (7) 27%
In full-time education at school, college or university (-)
Unemployed and available for work (3) 12%
Permanently sick/disabled (2) 8%
Temporarily sick (-)
Retired from work (2) 8%
Looking after the home (-)
Caring for someone (2) 8%
Doing something else (1) 4%
West Dorset 37% of those responding in relation to the West Dorset scheme are working full time, 28% are retied from work, 15% are working part time, 11% are permanently sick or disabled, 3% are unemployed and available for work, 1% are looking after the home, 1% are caring for someone, 1% are temporarily sick and 3% are doing something else. Two of the three respondents ‘doing something else’, specified ‘volunteering 18hrs weekly’ and ‘volunteering and working as a writer’.
38
Page 380 Which of these activities best describes what you are doi... for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=West Dorset District Council (75 responses)
Working full time (30 or more hours per week) (28) 37%
Working part time (under 30 hours per week) (11) 15%
In full-time education at school, college or university (-)
Unemployed and available for work (2) 3%
Permanently sick/disabled (8) 11%
Temporarily sick (1) 1%
Retired from work (21) 28%
Looking after the home (1) 1%
Caring for someone (1) 1%
Doing something else (2) 3%
Weymouth & Portland 27% of those responding in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme are working full time, 27% are working part time, 21% are retied from work, 6% are permanently sick or disabled, 6% are unemployed and available for work, 6% are temporarily sick, 3% are caring for someone, and 6% are doing something else. One of the respondents ‘doing something else’ specified ‘self employed pressure cleaner/lawn mower not getting much work in this area’.
39
Page 381 Which of these activities best describes what you are doi... for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (34 responses)
Working full time (30 or more hours per week) (9) 27%
Working part time (under 30 hours per week) (9) 27%
In full-time education at school, college or university (-)
Unemployed and available for work (2) 6%
Permanently sick/disabled (2) 6%
Temporarily sick (2) 6%
Retired from work (7) 21%
Looking after the home (-)
Caring for someone (1) 3%
Doing something else (2) 6% Which age group do you belong to? Purbeck Which age group do you belong to? for Please indicate which council scheme Theyou majority are commenting (76%) on=Purbeck of respondents District Councilin relation to Purbeck are aged 45 or over. (25 responses)
Under 18 (-)
18 - 24 (-)
25 - 34 (2) 8%
35 - 44 (4) 16%
45- 54 (8) 32%
55 - 64 (5) 20%
65 or over (6) 24%
Prefer not to say (-)
40
Page 382 West Dorset Which age group do you belong to? for Please indicate which council scheme Theyou majority are commenting (85%) on=West of respondents Dorset District in relationCouncil to West Dorset are aged 45 or over. (75 responses)
Under 18 (-)
18 - 24 (1) 1%
25 - 34 (4) 5%
35 - 44 (6) 8%
45- 54 (23) 31%
55 - 64 (26) 35%
65 or over (14) 19%
Prefer not to say (1) 1%
Weymouth & Portland The majority (74%) of respondents in relation to Weymouth & Portland are aged 45 or Which age group do you belong to? for Please indicate which council scheme over.you are commenting on=Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (34 responses)
Under 18 (-)
18 - 24 (1) 3%
25 - 34 (2) 6%
35 - 44 (5) 15%
45- 54 (9) 27%
55 - 64 (12) 35%
65 or over (4) 12%
Prefer not to say (1) 3%
41
Page 383 The Equality Act 2010 describes a person as disabled if they have a longstanding physical or mental condition that has lasted, or is likely to last 12 months; and this condition has a substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to- day activities. People with some conditions (cancer, multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS for example) are considered to be disabled from the point that they are diagnosed. Do you consider yourself to be disabled as set out in the Equality Act 2010?
PurbeckThe Equality Act 2010 describes a person as disabled if 15%t... offor respondents Please indicate in relation which to council the Purbeck scheme scheme you considerare themselves to be disabled.commenting on=Purbeck District Council (26 responses)
Yes (4) 15%
No (19) 73%
Prefer not to say (3) 12%
West Dorset 17% of respondents in relation to the West Dorset scheme consider themselves to be disabled.
42
Page 384 The Equality Act 2010 describes a person as disabled if t... for Please indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=West Dorset District Council (75 responses)
Yes (13) 17%
No (55) 73%
Prefer not to say (7) 9%
Weymouth & Portland 21%The of Equality respondents Act 2010 in describes relation toa person the Weymouth as disabled & if Portland t... for Please scheme consider indicate which council scheme you are commenting on=Weymouth & Portland themselvesBorough Council to be disabled. (33 responses)
Yes (7) 21%
No (24) 73%
Prefer not to say (2) 6%
43
Page 385 If yes, please tell us which type of impairment applies to you. You may have more than one type of impairment, so please select all the impairments that apply to you.
Purbeck Of those responding in relation to the Purbeck scheme who consider themselves to be disabled, two report having a physical disability, one having a long standing illness or health condition, one having a mental health condition and one having a sensory impartment (hearing, sight or both).
West Dorset Of those responding in relation to the West Dorset scheme who consider themselves to be disabled, seven report having a long standing illness or health condition, five having a physical disability, four having a mental health condition, three having a sensory impartment (hearing, sight or both), and one having a learning disability/difficulty.
Weymouth & Portland Of those responding in relation to the Weymouth & Portland scheme who consider themselves to be disabled, five report having a long standing illness or health condition, two having a mental health condition, two having a sensory impartment (hearing, sight or both), and one having a physical disability.
44
Page 386 Agenda Item 18
Management Committee 13 December 2016 Freedom of the Borough – Weymouth Sea Cadets For Recommendation To Council
Briefholder Cllr K Brookes, Corporate Affairs and Continuous Improvement Cllr J Cant, Finance and Assets
Senior Leadership Team Contact: S Caundle, Assistant Chief Executive
Report Author: S Carne, Democratic Services Manager
Statutory Authority Local Government Act 1972 Section 249(5)
Purpose of Report
1 To consider the granting of the Freedom of the Borough to the Weymouth Sea Cadets.
Officer Recommendations
2 (a) That Management Committee recommends to Full Council that the Freedom of the Borough be granted to the Weymouth Sea Cadets.
(b) That up to £6,000 from General Reserves be used towards the cost of a Freedom of the Borough Parade and a Church Service, if (a) above is approved by Full Council.
Reason for Decision
3 To consider a request from the Weymouth Sea Cadet Unit to be granted Freedom of the Borough.
Background and Reason Decision Needed
4 A request has been received from Phil Dennis PO from the Weymouth Sea Cadets for the unit to be granted the Freedom of the Borough. In 2017 the Weymouth Sea Cadet unit will have been established in the Borough for 75 years and they would like to mark this auspicious occasion with the granting of the Freedom of the Borough, Church Service and a Freedom of the Borough Parade in Spring 2017. The Sea Cadets have a long history Page 387 of supporting local children in the borough and the local community over the last 75 years.
5 Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 the Borough Council is able to grant freedom for “persons who have, in the opinion of the authority, rendered eminent services to that place or area.”
6 Should members agree, a formal resolution will need to be passed at a special meeting of Full Council, and the “Freedom”, marked by the presentation of a commemorative Freedom Scroll to the Weymouth Sea Cadets, who would then be able to exercise the right to march through the streets of the Borough and hold a church service at a future date.
Implications
Financial
7 The cost of the civic administrative arrangements will be minimal, officer and member time in attending a special meeting of Full Council and the cost of producing a commemorative scroll and a parlour reception held by the Mayor which can be met from the mayoral budget.
8 The costs associated with organising a Freedom Parade are more significant in terms of officer time and the arrangements that will need to be put in place, there is no budget allocated for such events and, if approved, the costs will need to be met from General Reserves. The main costs associated with the Freedom of the Borough relate to: - Holding a Church Service - Road Closure arrangements - Hire of a Dias - Hire of venue and provision of refreshments for the reception - Provision of transport for guests.
Consultation and Engagement Relevant Brief holders Events Manager Weymouth Sea Cadets, Executive Officer
Appendices None
Background Papers None
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: Susan Carne, Democratic Services Manager Telephone: 01305 252216 Email: [email protected] Page 388 Agenda Item 19
Management Committee 13th December 2016 Weymouth Town Centre Masterplan – Site update - Peninsula
Appendix 1 to this report is not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of The Local Government Act 1972, as amended. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. For Decision
Briefholder Cllr Jeff Cant
Senior Leadership Team Contact: M Hamilton,Strategic Director
Report Author: Martin Hamilton
Statutory Authority
Legal power to dispose of the land – s123 (2) and s 128(1) Local Government Act 1972 and Circular 06/03 Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003.
Purpose of Report
1 To advise Management Committee on the investigations undertaken to- date in determining the issues, options and financial viability for progression of the leisure led Peninsula re-development. 2 To seek agreement to refine the details in all scheme areas, including potential phasing, in order to confirm if the site redevelopment can move forward to the next phase.
Officer Recommendations
2 (a) To note and accept the findings of the work undertaken by Cushman & Wakefield which is set out and contained in this report and the confidential appendix (Appendix 1). (b) To agree that Cushman & Wakefield undertake and progress the outstanding investigations and issues noted in this report, utilising the current scheme budget allocation. (c) To receive a report in February 2017 detailing the economic impact of the proposed scheme on the Borough. (d) To receive a report in March 2017 on traffic management proposals linked to the scheme. Page 389 (e) To receive a report in April 2017 addressing the issues identified in section 47- Next Steps, including scheme phasing and financing options. (f) To note that the progression of a “meanwhile uses” strategy for the existing peninsula buildings to bring buildings back into use has been successful with all available buildings having potential short term occupiers, with those lettings now being progressed.
Reason for Decision
3 To appraise members of positive progress to date, and to determine the further work required to progress the scheme.
Background
4 A report was submitted to the September 2016 Management Committee where it was agreed that work would be undertaken to progress in more detail a leisure led redevelopment scheme on the Peninsula site.
5 Cushman and Wakefield were commissioned to progress these issues, and a budget was allocated in the sum of £200,000. It was further agreed that a report on progress would be made back to Management Committee in December, and this report and summary presentation sets out findings and results to date.
6 Specifically it was agreed that a number of elements of the scheme needed investigation in order to finalise the viability and other development issues including:
1) Commission scheme concept and visuals for discussion with planners and occupiers 2) Engagement with potential occupiers 3) Pre-application planning submission 4) Services and ground condition surveys 5) Engagement with the Environment Agency 6) Transport study 7) Update of the financial viability analysis including production of a cost plan, and detailed due diligence by the council’s finance team.
The resultant information would then collectively allow better consideration of the risks, costs and viability of any potential scheme, and the ability to deliver the redevelopment being considered.
Good progress has been made to date, but the full results have yet to be received or concluded. Details of the current information are set out below.
Scheme content and layout
7 A concept scheme has been drawn up and the indicative site layout plan has been reproduced below.
8 A layout plan similar to the plan below was also provided to potential occupiers in the soft marketing exercise that was undertaken, as well as Page 390 the Environment Agency, the Local Planning Authority, and Historic England when seeking initial responses to the scheme concept.
9 The plan will need further revision to deal with access, servicing issues and potential user requirements but gives an initial view of the concept scheme. The detailed design phase will also include consideration of a wider mix of uses and exploration of how best improve the visual appearance of the Peninsula from the Esplanade and the Nothe. It is worth noting that the design facilitates phased development if appropriate.
10 The design includes a waterside walkway around the Peninsula which , with appropriate signage and design treatment, would link to the Esplanade and other walking and cycling routes around the town, as envisaged in the Weymouth Town Centre master plan.
Engagement with potential occupiers
11 Cushman Wakefield have approached a full spectrum of leisure operators, and interest in the site has been positive. Across the range of potential restaurant, cinema, gym, and activity leisure operators the site has generated sufficient interest to give confidence that the vision of a high quality and diverse leisure destination can be realised. The spread of occupiers, if realised ,would strengthen the towns leisure and tourism offer and lengthen the tourism season.
12 Demand for additional hotel accommodation in Weymouth has been established through the LEP funded tourism study, and this is borne out by direct approaches regarding sites on the Peninsula. In addition Cushman Page 391 and Wakefield continue to engage with hotel developers to better understand the most appropriate hotel solution for the site.
13The initial response is very encouraging with more potential occupiers expressing interest than the number of units proposed. The conclusion is that there is sufficient occupier interest to proceed to the next stage, assuming all other scheme aspects can be satisfied.
Pre-application Planning Submission
14 A pre-application planning submission was made and a response was received from the local planning authority on an indicative scheme similar to that shown on the concept scheme plan, but with the inclusion of potentially some small residential units mixed around the harbour area. This was partly because the original planning brief was to consider a mixed use scheme including residential but also to seek some views from the Environment Agency on such uses on the Peninsula.
15 The response overall from the planning authority is that the proposed leisure and hotel uses accord with policy. Consideration should be given to how proposal might be received locally - it should not be seen as a self- contained destination with visitors having little engagement with the wider town.
16 Further residential use is acceptable subject to resolving flood risk issues, which limit the suitability of the site for this use. Both the hotels and any other enabling uses such as some small residential perhaps at the Town end of the site would therefore need further work for those elements. However because the site is allocated, flood risk sequential and exception tests are not required.
17 While not necessarily proposed at this time planners have indicated that a decked car park would be acceptable, provided it is well designed. No other comment on parking was provided but the resolution of parking, numbers of spaces and the traffic issues arising from the intended uses will still need to be factored in, and will influence any final scheme design.
18 Planners indicate that a statement on the cessation of ferry services needs to be included in the application. It will be seen that there are still intended to be Harbourside facilities and the scope, content and users will again need to be factored into the final scheme, as well as the financial and other considerations for these elements.
19 Finally with regards to layout and the visual impact of any scheme that there is a tension between a modern or a traditional design approach which needs to be justified in the planning submission. There would be a need for further design work required on the visual impact of the development on views of the Nothe Fort from the Esplanade and general views from Nothe Fort itself.
Page 392 20 There might be a need to obtain a Marine Licence and thus some additional planning issues may arise as a result of this.
Engagement with the Statutory Consultees
Comments below are the initial responses from statutory consultees.
21 The site is in part medium and part high flood risk zoning, and climate change will exacerbate the position. Hotel and residential are classified as ‘more vulnerable’ uses and a Flood Risk Assessment will need to demonstrate the design flood level can be managed safely for occupants and users. This will need to deal with and set finished ground levels, quay wall heights and floor levels as part of mitigation strategy and how people can evacuate the site during a flood event. The Environment Agency also recommend a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan should be provided.
Historic England
22 The setting of the Nothe Fort is the key concern with regards to both views of the Nothe and also views from there. Historic England were supportive of the low height development in general, but do have concerns over the height of the 4-storey hotel building because of impact on Nothe Fort. The improved public realm in front of listed terrace is however welcomed. They do comment that they would like to see the railway tracks retained in some way within the public realm, which could be a challenge to the current scheme design.
Natural England
Natural England have confirmed they do not foresee any substantive issues at this location that would affect their remit but suggest consideration is given to how the proposals might help promote and interpret the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site.
Dorset County Council
23 As the flood authority DCC have indicated that the surface water can discharge to sea, albeit via petrol interceptor traps. With regards to flooding capacity needs to be sufficient to cope with 1 in 100 year event plus climate change. This needs further clarification and work to determine the impact this would have on the concept scheme.
Stakeholder initial consultation
24 A stakeholder and community consultation event was held to ask for views on the indicative layout plan provided. The response overall were positive in that there is support for a better quality leisure offer in Weymouth (provided this complements the theatre and the town centre), the proposed building heights were seen to be reasonable (providing views to the Nothe are preserved) and the realignment of the road to create better public realm, particularly the continuation of the promenade along the beach side. The retention of car parking was seen to be essential for the commercial survival of the theatre and for beach users. Page 393 25 The following suggestions were made:
a. The addition of an outdoor performance venue would be welcome, providing it complements the theatre’s programme of events. b. Harbour uses and integration requirement will need to be considered as the design develops. Weymouth’s fishing fleet are also keen to part of the development and that too will be factored in. c. Access to the water for watersports and other water based activities would be welcome. The heritage of the Peninsula should be celebrated. d. Both the community and cultural elements were perceived to be lacking by the community groups. Funding options for these elements will be explored as part of the next phase of the development. Cleary however the Pavilion does provide considerable cultural offer for the Town. e. A suggestion was that the development could include flexible, informal community spaces and there could be an opportunity to put Weymouth on the cultural map, as the Turner Contemporary has done for Margate. If arts and other funding was available similar to that scheme then this could indeed be considered. f. A public realm and public art strategy, including procurement of designers and artists, was also suggested. g. At the detailed design stage the appearance of the rear of the leisure units should be considered further.
Services and Ground Conditions
26 In broad terms, following the site investigations undertaken, the current development proposals are considered deliverable, with some areas of risk that could be managed through considered design, further investigation and a robust procurement strategy.
27 Investigations of previous bore holes and surveys were reviewed, a full topographical survey was undertaken, including current services and a detailed report and costing exercise concluded. At this time the costings are indicative since the final design and costs will be determined according to the final scheme design.
28 The contaminates in the site are relatively localised near to the former ferry area and those can be dealt with either by removal or capping, and the costs are reflected in the financial models. Piling will be needed as anticipated and the costs of this too have been included in the overall development appraisal. The harbour walls condition has been assessed using the relatively recent survey that was commissioned by the Council. The walls are serviceable for what is intended as there is no direct additional loading. Further to allow for future potential works the concept scheme is currently designed to allow a 10 metre access strip which will allow works to be undertaken in the future should these be needed.
29 Services to the site are limited with these currently running to the Pavilion, and more detailed investigations to those will be undertaken to determine if there is a possibility of enhancement there. That would then allow the potential to undertake an earlier phased approach to that general area of the site were that to be possible.Page 394 30 To the remainder of the site there are limited services only. It is envisaged that new services would need to be run to new restaurants and leisure units etc, and those costs have been included within the development financial appraisal as a budget figure at this time.
Transport
31 The draft report produced by Vectos has been received and is being reviewed by Dorset County Council. The draft report concludes that the number of parking spaces proposed is appropriate for this development based on trip generation data, and that the traffic generation will be no worse than the current situation compared to the existing situation during the busy Summer months. It is however accepted that the development may give rise to more traffic than the existing car park during the off peak months whereby background traffic flows will be considerably lower within the town.
32 In order to reduce the demand for car borne journeys and reduce the traffic along the Esplanade, the report makes the following recommendations:
a. Improvements to the Alexandra Gardens gyratory to improve traffic flow and improve the environment for pedestrians b. Introduce Variable Messaging Signing (VMS) to advise when the Peninsula car park is full to avoid unnecessary journeys c. Provide a new bus stop within the development d. Provision of a safe cycling route to the Peninsula with secure cycle storage facilities e. Appropriate car parking charging system
33 Taking account of the Vectos report and the LEP funded Parson Brinkerhoff report on traffic and parking in Weymouth it is proposed to bring forward recommendations to improve traffic flow in the town for early implementation.
Legal Issues
34 There are currently two occupational leases relating to the site, being the Tower (occupied by Merlin) and the Pavilion Theatre. Both are anticipated to remain as part of the redevelopment.
35 There are three key restrictions on portions of the site related to previous uses of the Peninsula. The Council would need to agree with, variously, the Crown, the Crown Estate’s Commissioners and the Board of Trade that these restrictions and requirements are no longer appropriate and may be released.
36 The Department of Transport has confirmed that the railway lines are redundant. A decision will need to be made whether these are removed, covered or retained within the public realm. As part of the next stage of works, the location of the tracks will be laid over the concept plan to agree the best course of action. Page 395 37 Due to harbour usage along one frontage of the site, consideration is being given as to how the Peninsula site land has previously been held, and any implications arising from the transfer of the assets from the Harbour Board to the corporate Property Services function dealt with as part of the harbour budget setting process. Given the cessation of the restricted areas associated with the ferry operation formal notice of discontinuance, if required, will be dealt with. This may need to follow a regulatory procedure but this matter is being investigated further by the legal team to seek clarification.
Financial Viability Analysis
38 A financial appraisal has been undertaken By Cushman & Wakefield based upon a relatively detailed Cost Plan and Schedule of Estimated Rental Value. In addition to the construction costs for the buildings, the cost plan also includes allowances for abnormal costs and external works such as hard and soft landscaping.
39 The project was then appraised on two methodologies (as reflected in the September 2016 report), these being the traditional developer approach and an alternative a long term cash flow assuming Council borrowing.
40 A detailed financial analysis is attached as a confidential appendix 1 to this document. This is commercially sensitive as it indicates potential rental levels, construction costs, return on investment, plus tenant incentive packages, which will vary.
41 The conclusion of the financial appraisal is that the traditional developer approach remains unviable without the gap funding indicated in confidential Appendix 1.
42 The use of a long term cash flow does however produce a positive income stream depending on interest rate, the cost of the scheme, the assumed income, and the length of the repayment term.
43 Further more detailed financial analysis is required concerning potential funding options given the Council’s existing levels of borrowing and future affordability.
44 As might be expected on a scheme of this scale and complexity, further work is required to properly evaluate all options available to the Council. These options include :-
a. Capital injection (from Council or other sources) to de-risk the site and reduce traditional developer funding deficit and improve scheme viability; b. Phasing the scheme to enable disposal of initial phases to facilitate subsequent phases; c. Phasing of scheme to assist delivery, together with interim uses on undeveloped areas; d. Opportunities for partnering potentially utilising other assets; e. A review of the brief and occupier mix to determine the extent to which an element of enabling usesPage would 396 assist scheme viability. 45 This work will be carried out by officers and Cushman & Wakefield within the funds already allocated to the project.
Overall Summary of Concept Scheme to-date.
46 A considerable amount of work has been undertaken in progressing the scheme and while there is still a lot to do the results thus far are encouraging. This will then allow a conclusion to be drawn on the overall scheme viability, and delivery issues.
Next Steps
47 In order to progress the scheme, officers have identified the following further actions which are commended to Management Committee to endorse.
a. Commence discussions to seek agreement with third parties on title restrictions and railway line. b. Council officer team, with Cushman & Wakefield, to review all financial opportunities for funding in more detail c. Consider opportunities for capital injection of funds to reduce traditional developer funding deficit to improve scheme viability d. Consider opportunities for partnering e. Consider phasing of scheme to assist delivery, together with interim uses on undeveloped areas f. Review brief and occupier mix to determine the extent to which an element of enabling uses would assist scheme viability g. Produce an economic impact assessment of the development on the wider town centre.
Implications
Corporate Plan
Development of the sites within the Weymouth Town Centre master plan and the local plan are supported by way of employment gain and a mixed scheme development.
Financial
The LEP has approved use of £81,500 from the funding for Western Dorset Growth Strategy studies to facilitate the ongoing work to bring forward this development. This, together with the balance remaining of the £200,000 budget approved by Management Committee for these initial phase investigations, will be utilised to deliver the next steps identified above.
Equalities
There are no equalities issues and any development would be fully DDA compliant.
Page 397 Environmental
The delivery of a new mixed leisure or other scheme offers the opportunity to enhance the current Peninsula environment. Any scheme will be subject to the usual planning and other environmental and statutory checks and requirements.
Economic Development
There is the potential from a successful scheme to provide additional employment, and to add to the economic prosperity of Weymouth. The production of the economic impact assessment of the development on the local area will provide further evidence of the wider benefits of the scheme.
Risk Management (including Health & Safety)
The risk of any council undertaking a development scheme is potentially high, but with further detailed studies to assist in this decision the risk will be reduced. The council will, with that more detailed information and advice, be able to decide then if it wishes to commit to progressing the scheme. The risks and costs will be set out and so each decision will be based upon the best information available at that time.
Human Resources
None directly arising
Consultation and Engagement
Asset Management Group. Town Centre Master Plan has been subject to consultation
Background Papers
Weymouth town centre master 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: Martin Hamilton Telephone: 01305 838086 Email: [email protected]
Page 398 Management Committee Four Month Forward plan 1 December 2016 To 31 March 2017
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 are available from the council’s offices at Council Offices, Commercial Road, Weymouth, DT4 8NG 01305 251010 and will be published on the council’s website Dorsetforyou.com 3 working days before the meeting. Page 399 Page 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 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.
Brief Holders Community Safety - Cllr F Drake Corporate Affairs and Continuous Improvement – Cllr K Brookes Economic Development – Cllr J Farquharson Environment and Sustainability - Cllr R Nowak Finance and Assets – Cllr J Cant Agenda Item 21 Housing – Cllr G Taylor Community Facilities – Cllr A Blackwood Tourism, Harbours and Culture – Cllr J Osborne Social Inclusion – Cllr C James Transport and Infrastructure – C Huckle KEY DECISIONS
Title of Report Purpose of Report Documents Exempt Portfolio Holder & Decision Date Report Author Exploring options for To advise members of the outcome of the the future of Local public consultation on local government WDDC Leader of 17 Jan 2017 Government in reorganisation (LGR), to present the case Council Bournemouth, Dorset for change and financial appraisal of Full Council and Poole options: and the invite members to make WPBC Leader of 26 Jan 2017 a decision on whether to recommend LGR Council to government and, if so, which is their
Page 400 Page preferred option. NDDC Leader of Council Matt Prosser, Chief Executive
Non- Key Decisions
Title of Report Purpose of Report Documents Exempt Portfolio Holder & Decision Date Report Author Hotel and Guesthouse To review and agree the policy for dealing WPBC Briefholder for 7 Feb 2017 Review with the Council’s leased hotels. Finance and Assets David Brown, Head of Assets & Infrastructure Accelerating Housing To promote establishing an Accelerating WPBC Briefholder for 7 Feb 2017 Development Housing Development Programme Housing Programme reporting to the Western Dorset Growth Stephen Hill, Strategic Strategy and allocate initial funding. Director NON KEY DECISIONS
Title of Report Purpose of Report Documents Exempt Portfolio Holder & Decision Date Report Author Appointment of External To consider the appointment of External WPBC Briefholder for 7 Feb 2017 Auditors Auditors. Finance and Assets Jason Vaughan, Strategic Director Quarter 3 Business To receive the Quarter 3 report. WPBC Briefholder for 7 Feb 2017 Review Finance and Assets Julie Strange, Head of Financial Services Budget and Financial WPBC Briefholder for 7 Feb 2017 Page 401 Page Strategy 2017-18 Finance and Assets Jason Vaughan, Strategic Director 2017/18 Treasury To consider the TMSS and Annual WPBC Briefholder for 7 Feb 2017 Management Strategy Investment Strategy for the coming year. Finance and Assets Statement and Annual To set prudential indicators and to review Full Council Investment Strategy the policy on Minimum Revenue Provision 23 Feb 2017 (MRP). Julie Strange, Head of Financial Services Report on the findings To consider adopting the new parking WPBC Briefholder for 7 Mar 2017 of a consultation on the policy for Weymouth & Portland. Transport and Weymouth & Portland Infrastructure Draft Parking Policy Jack Creeber, Parking & Transport Manager NON KEY DECISIONS
Title of Report Purpose of Report Documents Exempt Portfolio Holder & Decision Date Report Author Report into various free To consider a report on free car parks report of 16 WPBC Briefholder for 7 Mar 2017 car parks within the Borough. August 2016 Transport and Infrastructure Jack Creeber, Parking & Transport Manager Management of the To inform members of progress made WPBC Briefholder for 7 Mar 2017 Verne Common Nature in respect of the work plan scheduled Finance and Assets, Reserve and High in the current Higher Level WPBC Briefholder for Page 402 Page Angle Battery, Portland Stewardship Scheme for this land and Community Facilities related budgetary outcomes. Greg Northcote, Estates Manager To consider potential options for future land management and approve recommendations. 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 403 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 404