PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL

Council Offices Three Yards Close Fortuneswell PORTLAND DT5 1JN

Tel: 01305 821638 E-mail: [email protected]

22nd October, 2020

Dear Councillor

You are hereby summoned to attend a MEETING of the PLANNING & HIGHWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, to be held in the PORTLAND COMMUNITY VENUE, PORTLAND on WEDNESDAY 28th OCTOBER, 2020 commencing at 7.00 pm, when the business set out below will be transacted.

It is the Council’s intention that all meetings of the Council and its Committees be recorded aurally.

Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85661737554?pwd=SnhrK2VwcUZnMFN RbnRSK0VpSEc0QT09

Meeting ID: 856 6173 7554 Passcode: 983711 One tap mobile +442030512874,,85661737554#,,,,,,0#,,983711# +442034815237,,85661737554#,,,,,,0#,,983711# United Kingdom

Yours faithfully, pp. Anna Takashima

Kathryn Hemensley Town Clerk AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. Declarations of interest

3. Presentation by Chapman Lily Planning Limited and Falcon Retail To receive a presentation from Chapman Lily Planning Limited and Falcon Retail regarding application no. WP/20/00649/FUL, SITE E, COODE WAY, PORTLAND - Erection of a petrol filling station and associated works

4. Minutes of the meeting held on 23rd September, 2020 To agree the minutes of the meeting on 23rd September, 2020 as a true and accurate record.

5. Chairman’s Report, Minute update and matters arising since the last meeting a) Waste Management at East Weare Road To receive an update on waste management at East Weare Road

6. Update on current planning applications

7. Public participation

8. Review of planning applications notified by Dorset Council – See Annex A to this Agenda

9. Planning contravention issues

10. Neighbourhood plan update To receive the report and agree the proposed response to the central government Planning for the Future consultation – Please see Annex B to this agenda.

11. Highway issues a) Traffic Management Strategy To receive the report from Cllr Draper regarding traffic management – Please see Annex C to this agenda.

2 12. Date of next meeting The Committee’s next meeting is scheduled to take place on 25th November, 2020 via Zoom starting at 7.00 pm. There will be an Extraordinary Planning & Highways Committee Meeting on 11th November, 2020 via Zoom starting at 7pm

3

How to Join a Portland Town Council Zoom Meeting It is possible to join a Portland Town Council Zoom meeting either online or by phone. Please follow the instructions below.

Online Instructions Via the Zoom link 1. Click the link provided. 2. When prompted, open the Zoom application i. On a phone or tablet you maybe prompted to either launch meeting or, if you have not already downloaded the application, download Zoom client from your device’s store 3. Wait for the meeting to begin and you will be admitted to the meeting by the host. You may have to wait a short moment for this. Via your internet browser with meeting ID and passcode 1. Open zoom.us in your internet browser 2. In the top right‐hand corner, click ‘Join Meeting’ 3. Enter the meeting ID (this will be listed on the meeting invitation but can also be found on the event listing on Portland Town Council’s website) 4. When prompted, open the Zoom application i. On a phone or tablet you maybe prompted to either launch meeting or if you have not already downloaded the application, download Zoom client from your device’s store 5. Enter the meeting passcode (this should also be listed on meeting invitation and the event listing on Portland Town Council’s website) 6. Wait for the meeting to begin and you will be admitted to the meeting by the host. You may have to wait a short moment for this. Telephone Instructions Dial into the Zoom meeting by telephone 1. Find your meeting invitation or visit the meeting event listing on Portland Town Council’s website 2. Use your telephone to dial the telephone number listed on the meeting invitation or event listing 3. When prompted over the phone enter the Meeting ID followed by # 4. When prompted to enter your Participant ID, enter 0 followed by # 5. When prompted, enter the Passcode followed by # 6. Please ensure that your telephone is muted unless you are invited to speak 7. Wait for the meeting to begin and you will be admitted to the meeting by the host. You may have to wait a short moment for this. Alternative telephone instructions The best way to join a Zoom meeting by phone is by following the instructions above. However, you may alternatively arrange a conference call by telephoning the Portland Town Council office on 01305 821638. You will be called by telephone during the meeting at your allotted time. Please ensure that you are waiting to take the call at this time as if you miss the call, you may miss your opportunity to speak. After you have spoken, the call will be hung up and you will leave the meeting. PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL

PLANNING & HIGHWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ONLINE VIA ZOOM ON 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2020 AT 7.00 PM

PRESENT: Councillors Charlie Flack (Chair), Sandy West, Carralyn Parkes, Cathy Atkins, Paul Kimber, Jim Draper, David Thurston, Bernard Parkes, Pete Roper, Lesley Saunders and Anna Takashima (Deputy Town Clerk).

IN ATTENDANCE: Andy Matthews (Neighbourhood Plan Working Group) and three members of the public.

PH/153/20 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE – Councillors Giovanna Lewis, Rob Hughes, and Sue Cocking – Please see minutes of the meeting of 22 May 2019, item 2048a for more information.

PH/154/20 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST – None were given

PH/155/20 – MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26TH AUGUST, 2020 The minutes were formally agreed and signed as a correct record.

PH/156/20 – CHAIRMAN’S REPORT, MINUTE UPDATE AND OTHER MATTERS ARISING a) Minute Item PH/144/20 I - It was queried as to whether there was an update from Cllr Cocking and Dorset Highways regarding these issues. None had been received. Action on the Deputy Town Clerk to chase. b) Minute Item PH/146/20a – The Chair reported that he had contacted Dorset Council regarding the continued problem with the blocked gullies on Easton Lane and requested that Dorset Waste Partnership clear the mess and debris. c) Minute Item PH/146/20b – Cllr C Parkes gave an update to the Committee regarding the ongoing issues with waste management at East Weare Road. She recapped on the previous situation in August where correspondence from Aster Housing had been received blaming residents for the issues and stating that a planning application could not be submitted due to the Covid-19 crisis and it was unlikely that an application would be submitted this year. Cllr C Parkes updated the committee on recent discussions with Aster, who were now considering a proposal that would not need planning permission. Cllr C Parkes proposed that the committee keep up pressure on Aster Housing to resolve the situation as soon as possible. Other councillors voiced their dissatisfaction at the fact that residents were having to put up with such an unacceptable situation for so long. Resolved: The Committee is to keep up pressure on Aster Housing to resolve waste management issues at East Weare Road.

1 Action on the Deputy Town Clerk and Cllr C Parkes to draft a letter to Aster Housing asking them to attend the next meeting of the Planning & Highways Committee. d) The Chair reported that the alleged contravention of a business in Easton who were providing outside seating without a Sitting Out Licence had been reported to Dorset Council who were investigating. e) The Chair also reported that, due to a backlog, Dorset Council had been outsourcing the processing of some planning applications. It was noted that an application in relation to a beach hut at Portland Bill was due to be decided by a company in Birmingham. Andy Matthews noted that the Neighbourhood Plan included a policy on beach huts and approval in principle could already be agreed. f) The Chair reported that he had received a request from a resident who wanted to be able to view the planning documents for the proposed Powerfuel Energy Recovery Facility in hard copy as she did not have internet access. Action on The Chair and Deputy Town Clerk to consider the feasibility of this request. g) The Chair brought an email from Homes to the attention of the committee stating that the previous correspondent had left and a new officer was in post. They had proposed that they attend a future meeting to introduce themselves to the committee. This was likely to be in November due to a full agenda for the next meeting. Action on the Deputy Town Clerk to invite Homes England representative to the November meeting.

PH/157/20 – PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a) A resident wished to speak on the matter of waste management at East Weare Road. The resident informed the committee of the impact the situation was having on them. The resident reported that the issue had been going on for a considerable time and was unbearable.

The Chair informed the resident that the committee was sympathetic to their situation and that they would apply as much pressure as they can to resolve the situation.

The resident thanked the committee.

b) Andy Matthews brought a consultation on a proposed development at Portland Bill to the attention of the committee. He noted that there were some technical issues that had been pointed out to the developer.

PH/158/20 – UPDATE ON CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Chairman provided an update on the current planning applications. For further information please see Dorset For You / Planning / Portland.

2 PH/159/20 - PLANNING APPLICATIONS NOTIFIED BY DORSET COUNCIL The advisory committee discussed 11 new planning applications with a detailed list, including decisions made at this meeting, being held at Annex A to these minutes. For further information please see Dorset For You / Planning / Portland.

PH/160/20 – PLANNING CONTRAVENTION ISSUES No planning contravention issues were tabled.

PH/161/20 – NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN (NP) Andy Matthews presented his suggested responses to the central government consultation on proposed changes to the planning system. The committee considered the proposed responses. Full details can be found at Annex B to the previous meeting agenda. Resolved: The Committee agreed to all of the proposed responses. Action on the Deputy Town Clerk to submit the responses Cllr Draper raised a question about the level of local input into the newly formed Community Interest Company (CIC). Andy Matthews noted that a meeting between some Portland Town Councillors and the CIC had been set up. Action on councillors to report back at the next meeting

PH/162/20 – HIGHWAY ISSUES a) The Chair reported that an email had been received from a resident concerned about the safety of a disused caravan at Montrose Close. There were concerns that someone had been using one of the caravans for shelter and also that there were gas canisters propping up the caravan causing a health and safety hazard. It was noted by some of the councillors that this was a private car park. However, it was suggested that the matter be reported by the resident to the Community Fire Safety Officer. b) Traffic Hold Ups on Portland Beach Road The Chair reported on a number of emails from residents concerned about the almost daily tailbacks of traffic on Portland Beach Road. The traffic was backed up through Wyke, sometimes all the way up to Easton. It was proposed that Dorset Highways be approached to investigate. The Committee supported this proposal. Action on the Deputy Town Clerk to contact Dorset Council to request that they investigate. c) Report from Cllr B Parkes and Cllr C Parkes Regarding Parking Issues in Castletown Cllrs B and C Parkes presented their report on parking issues in Castletown. It was proposed that the report be forwarded to the Highways officer at Dorset Council to seek advice. The Committee supported this proposal.

3 Action on the Deputy Town Clerk to forward the report to the Highways Officer and report back at the next meeting. Cllr Draper also suggested that PTC could write to Agincare and request that they consider other users when parking and whether they could use the car park by Portland Castle. The Committee supported this suggestion. Action on the Deputy Town Clerk to write to Agincare. d) Parking Issues on Courtlands The Chair reported that a concerned resident had written to PTC regarding dangerous parking at Courtlands. The committee resolved to contact Dorset Highways to seek advice. Action on the Deputy Town Clerk to seek advice from Dorset Highways. e) Request to Relocate Bus Stop in Easton The Chair reported that a resident had written to PTC to request that the bus stop at Easton be relocated to allow him unhindered access to his property. The Committee discussed the request but could not see a problem with the location of the bus stop. Furthermore, moving the bus stop would have an impact on privacy for other residents. Resolved: The Committee did not support the request.

f) Request for Speed bumps at Channel View Road and Clarence Road The Chair reported that correspondence had been received from a resident to request speed bumps along Channel View Road and Clarence Road. It was noted that speed bumps were not always the most effective method of controlling traffic speed. Cllr Draper suggested that it would be useful to first consider the introduction of 20 MPH zones on Portland. He proposed that he set out a traffic management scheme and report back to the next meeting. The Committee agreed to this proposal. Action on Cllr Daper to formulate a traffic management scheme and report back at the next meeting.

PH/163/20 – DATE OF NEXT MEETING The Committee’s next meeting is to be held on 28th October, 2020 via Zoom starting at 7.00pm.

The meeting ended at 21:10

Signed…………………………………………… (Chair)

4 Annex A to Planning Meeting Minutes Dated 23rd September, 2020 NEW PLANNING APPLICATIONS AS ADVISED BY DORSET COUNCIL

Consultation Expiry Comments Planning Reference Address Details Date Portland Town Council support this FIELD WEST OF, VERNE 24th September, application and welcome the potential for WP/20/00476/FUL COMMON ROAD, Erect pump house 2020 development of the derelict buildings at the PORTLAND Verne. The continued operation and extension of an inert waste landfill; the continued operation of an inert waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) transfer station; the continued operation of an inert waste recycling facility and the continued operation of a Portland Town Council support this BROADCROFT QUARRY AND skip storage area. 24th September, application as there will be no loss to local WP/20/00497/DCC LANDFILL, EASTON, Phased restoration of the site. With 2020 amenity and the facility provides welcome PORTLAND, DORSET variation of conditions (1,2,13,14, & 15) provision for waste disposal. to: extend the end date for final restoration, amend the phasing of landfill and restoration, and agree restoration and aftercare scheme. Portland Town Council support this 159 WESTON STREET, 24th September, WP/20/00491/FUL Conversion of attic application as there will be no loss to local PORTLAND, DT5 2DG 2020 amenities.

LAND SOUTH OF, SWEET Use of two fields for sustainable Defer. Concerned over lack of detail over WP/20/00507/FUL 24h September, 2020 HILL ROAD, PORTLAND glamping and camping number of units and parking. REDUNDANT BUILDINGS, Modification of planning obligations on BROADCROFT QUARRY, Section 106 agreement dated 25th September, WP/20/00306/OBL Strongly objected. Been through committee. BUMPERS 24th June 2015 (original planning 2020 LANE, PORTLAND, DT5 1HY approval WP/14/00330/OUT) Change of use from shop (A1 Use Class) to 1no. dwelling (Use Class C3). Demolition and re-build of gable Portland Town Council support this WP/20/00422/FUL 15A REFORNE, PORTLAND, 29th September, wall and increase in height of the application as it will enhance local area. DT5 2AL 2020 roof to create accommodation at first floor level. Two storey rear extension. (Amended description)

Portland Town Council object to this Replacement of existing raised patio application on the grounds of highway safety, area, removal of portion of effect on conservation area, and removal of garden wall to facilitate vehicular access WP/20/00481/FUL 29 VENTNOR ROAD, 24th September, historic wall. We note that a similar to new parking area PORTLAND, DT5 1JE 2020 application, WP/19/00295/FUL, was under replaced patio. To incorporate previously refused and believe that those new access steps to reasons for refusal are still relevant to this dwelling application.

Portland Town Council support this application and welcome the expansion of a successful local business. We note that visitors travel from many far away locations BILLY WINTERS BAR DINER, and the business provides welcome provision 25th September, WP/20/00366/FUL PORTLAND BEACH ROAD, Retention and first floor expansion for sail boarders, walkers, bird watchers, to 2020 PORTLAND, DT4 9JZ name but a few. We note the lack of anti- social behaviour. There is plenty of parking. We feel that this business should be encouraged as it is a real benefit to the community and provides employment.

The application was supported, 7 to 2. Reinstatement of an original window Portland Town Council support this ROYAL VICTORIA LODGE, opening on the north-west elevation. application and welcome the enhancement of WP/20/00451/FUL VICTORIA SQUARE, Reinstatement of the front door. Use of 1st October, 2020 the building. We appreciate the care that has PORTLAND, DT5 1AL the ground floor as Class E (Commercial, been taken to improve this building. Business or Service). Alterations to include removal of all the roof slates and replacement with new slate tiles, window refurbishment, removal of the lighthouse mural, ROYAL VICTORIA LODGE, Portland Town Council support this removal of a single storey store from WP/20/00452/LBC VICTORIA SQUARE, 1st October, 2020 application as there will be no loss to the the north-west elevation, reinstatement PORTLAND, DT5 1AL character of the building. of an original window opening on the north-west elevation, repair rendered exterior, reinstatement of the front door 51 FOUR ACRES, Portland Town Council support the proposal Erect two storey side extension with WP/20/00524/FUL PORTLAND, DT5 2JG 8th October, 2020 as it is in keeping with local area and there front dormer extension will be no loss of amenities.

Annex A to Planning Meeting Agenda Dated 28th October, 2020 NEW PLANNING APPLICATIONS AS ADVISED BY DORSET COUNCIL

Consultation Expiry Comments Planning Reference Address Details Date

12 STRAITS, PORTLAND, Change of use from a dental practice WP/20/00537/COU TBC DT5 1HG (D1) to a dwelling (C3)

SITE E, COODE WAY, Erection of a petrol filling station and WP/20/00649/FUL TBC PORTLAND associated works

Additional details from the developer  Field A (west) – would be approx. 30 pitches and would be a car-free field with all parking provided adjacent to the stables.

 Field B (east) – would be approx. 20 pitches, parking will be available on this part of the site.

 Customer numbers would vary throughout the seasons. The pitches will mostly Land South of, Sweet Hill WP/20/00507/FUL - Erect a Glamping Campsite 29th October serve couples of all ages, and small adventurous Road families looking to appreciate Portland’s wildlife and activities.

 Toilets will be small moveable (non- permanent) structures sited in discrete locations near to each field entrance.

 To ensure slow vehicles, a small ‘sleeping policeman’ is installed, and 5mph signs have gone up. The type of access track stops vehicles from travelling fast in any event. 66 SOUTHWELL, WP/20/00526/FUL Erect garage and outbuilding 1st November PORTLAND, DT5 2EF

SITE OF FORMER, 34A WP/20/00569/FUL Erect dwelling 29th October TBC CHISWELL, PORTLAND

Erection of a drive-through coffee shop SITE P OSPREY QUAY, and 9no. business units WP/20/00705/FUL HAMM BEACH ROAD, (Use Class E and/or B8) with associated 1st November

PORTLAND access, parking and landscaping works Change of use of ground floor (A2), external alterations to front WP/20/00615/FUL 74 FORTUNESWELL, elevation and removal of rear single 11th November PORTLAND, DT5 1LZ storey extension to form 1.no dwelling (C3)

HUT 21, FIELD 758, Demolition of existing Beach Hut and WP/20/00516/FUL 12th November PORTLAND replacing it with larger Beach Hut.

FERRYBRIDGE BOATYARD, Proposed Replacement Office Building WP/20/00560/FUL PORTLAND BEACH ROAD, & Workshop at Ferrybridge Boatyard, 12th November PORTLAND Weymouth

Planning and Highways Meeting 28th October 2020 Neighbourhood Plan and Planning Policy Updates Background Members agreed in August 2020 to formalise responses to two consultations issued by the MHDCLG concerning proposed changes to the planning process. At the September meeting a response to the first of these ‘ Immediate Changes to Planning Policy ‘was approved and returned (as set out in the minutes of that meeting). For reference Dorset Council’s response can also be seen via this link Link to DC Response The second a response to ‘ Planning for the Future’ was to be confirmed at this meeting. It was considered that Members would have the benefit of being able to refer to the Dorset Council response which was approved at their Cabinet meeting of the 6th October 2020. As additional information we have also included and extract from the Local Government Association’s response. The deadline for the return of this consultation is the 29th October 2020.

Consultation Information The following is attached

• Appendix A -A summary Extract from the Dorset Council Presentation on the consultation • Appendix B -A draft response sheet which includes Dorset Council’s context information and responses • Appendix C -A full summary of questions in the format presented in the Consultation document (for reference). • Annex D – Extract from Local Government Association’s Response The draft response sheet includes some proposed responses for agreement however some responses have been left blank for member’s direction (marked in red).

Reference Material Full details of the White Paper can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-future Dorset Council’s Cabinet papers can be found here (Agenda item 15) https://moderngov.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=152&MId=4732&Ver=4

Recommendation That the collated responses agreed at the meeting be sent to the MHDCLG by email by the 29th October 2020.

AM Oct 2020 White Paper summary DC Officer comments Town Council’s Draft Response

PILLAR 1: PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT Q1 What three words do you associate with the planning Fragmented, Onerous, Broken system in England ? Q2 Do you get involved with planning decisions in your local The Town Council is a statutory area ? Y/N consultative body for Planning Issues Q2a If no , why not ? N/A (Don’t know how to/it takes too long/It’s too complicated/ I don’t care/Other please specify) Q3 Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans As a Town Council, we need to and contribute your views to planning decisions. How be notified at the earliest would you like to find out about plans and planning opportunity by email. This proposals in the future ? would prevent too many (Social Media/On Line News/Newspapers/By post/Other retrospective applications. – please specify) Q4 What are your top three priorities for planning in your All of the above. The reason we local area ? have completed a (Building homes for young people/building homes for the Neighbourhood Plan is homeless/Protection of green spaces/The environment because, from our own unique biodiversity and action on climate change/Increasing the perspective, all are affordability of housing/The design of new homes and interrelated. places/Supporting the high street/Supporting the local economy/More or better infrastructure/Protection of existing heritage buildings or areas/Other – please specify) Q5 Radical changes are proposed to local plans. Planning Removal of the opportunity for people to Portland is particularly law will be changed and the process streamlined, so that comment at outline planning application vulnerable to a generalistic democratic and community involvement takes stage on sites allocated for growth in plans approach given its particular place primarily at the plan-making stage. will reduce the ability of communities to set of issues and constraints. have input into proposals affecting their This is a main reason why we local areas, and reduce local democracy. have spent some considerable time in creating a Neighbourhood Plan

Q5 Plans are proposed to be simplified, based on a standard As above, there is concern about loss of In our case, it would be better digital map template and significantly shorter, with a local democracy in relation to the to build on the existing zoning system identifying land under three categories; identification of growth areas. There would Neighbourhood Plan which Growth: areas suitable for substantial development, and also need to be a significantly greater already includes Zonal planning where outline planning approval for development would amount of technical work undertaken at aspects and refine these be automatically secured for those forms and types of plan making stage if site allocations were to further with aspects of development specified in the plan; have automatic outline planning Masterplanning against permission. Plan proposals may require strategic objectives Environmental Impact Assessment as well as Strategic Environmental Assessment. There is no mention of minerals and waste Renewal: areas suitable for some development, where in the paper, and no indication therefore of As above permission in principle or local development orders whether minerals and waste planning is may be used to bring development forward intended to be included within the new Protected: areas where development is restricted, and approach or whether they should continue where full planning applications would be required for to be planned for separately. Minerals in any development proposals. particular have to be worked where they are found, which does not fit easily within the three zoning categories proposed. National planning policy would need to include policies for the management of waste and supply of minerals if these are no longer to be included in local plans, and there is also a need to consider how minerals safeguarding could be achieved under the proposed zoning system. Q6 Local plans would be expected to set clear rules for the Planning decisions often involve the use of We concur with the LPA’s areas proposed for development, stating what would be professional judgement to assess and weigh response allowed, rather than general policies against which up the material factors in a case. It is proposals would be assessed. Policies in Local and therefore not possible to distil planning Neighbourhood Plans would be in machine readable decisions down to a simple decision about format so that wherever feasible, they can be used by whether it aligns with policy or not. An digital services to automatically screen developments important example would be where there is and help identify where they align with policies. the potential for impact on a nearby heritage asset impacting on its setting.

Q6 General development management policies would all It should be noted that one of the reasons We concur with the LPA’s be set out nationally, rather than in local plans, though for repeating national policy in local response alternatives are suggested, including allowing some plans is that the legislative weight of the local development management policies provided that development plan does not apply they do not duplicate national policy. currently to national policy, and this should be taken into account in planning any changes. While it is recognised that the proposals would reduce duplication and help to make plans shorter, there will be situations when a local policy approach is important, particularly where it is necessary to set out a local approach to meeting a national policy – for example the approaches to mitigating against the impact of development on protected habitats (such as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace provision to reduce impacts on heathlands). There should therefore be scope for local policies where they do not duplicate national policy and are necessary to reflect the local context. Q7 a)Sustainability appraisal would be abolished and The simplification of the sustainability We accept the LPA’s response replaced with a simplified process. appraisal process is supported as it should but reiterate given the unique b)The Duty to Cooperate will be removed, and there remove much of the ‘process’ that exists set of circumstances that will be a slimmed down deliverability test at around the SA around it. Any replacement Portland faces that any examination. must however be robust and focused on replacement is a robust. positive outcomes for promoting sustainable development. Removal of the Duty to Cooperate is supported as it has not been effective and We agree that a strategic has delayed plan making. While it has not approach to infrastructure is worked in relation to housing numbers, required and that planning there is still a need for strategic planning to should be more infrastructure make decisions about where growth and led rather than relying on infrastructure investment should be housing growth to fund focused, and how cross-boundary issues will required improvements be addressed. The slimmed down delivery test is supported. Q8a Under the first section on ‘planning for development’ Binding targets would remove any debate Please refer to our response the paper sets out the proposal for binding housing about housing targets from local plan to the ‘Immediate changes to targets to be set for each local planning authority area examinations, and would also remove the Planning Policy Consultation’ at national level, rather than the current system in current requirement to consider unmet which sets out our concerns which a standard national methodology for deriving need from adjoining areas, under the ‘duty around a formulaic approach housing targets is expected to be used, councils must to cooperate’. This would save time at also try to meet any unmet need from adjoining areas, examinations but there would be no local and councils may use alternative methods of deriving democratic input into the housing number their figures if there are exceptional reasons to do so. for the area. Greater detail is required on how the national housing targets would be derived, and this must include an element of national planning strategy. Q8b Unlike the current standard methodology, which This is essential for targets that will be Concur with LPA uses household forecasts and affordability data as binding, but there is no detail yet as to how response its two inputs, and the interim proposals for the figures would be worked out and how adjustments to environmental constraints would be that method, it is proposed that the new binding considered. It will be important that this targets would also take account of environmental takes account of indirect environmental constraints. effects (such as the areas within which development can have adverse impacts on internationally protected nature conservation sites, or the settings of heritage assets) as well as the proportion of an area that is covered by various constraints. The distribution of development must be based not only on data but also on a strategy for how areas should grow and the infrastructure needed to support them. By setting binding development targets for all areas, the system would be establishing a national distribution of development, but there is no indication that a national strategy, taking account of aims and aspirations for the different parts of the country, will feed into it. Q8 There would no longer be a continued requirement to The five year land supply calculations took We agree with the LPA demonstrate a five year supply of land for housing, as up significant time at local plan response but are particularly plans should identify sufficient land under the new examinations and planning appeals, and concerned that areas such as proposals. The Housing Delivery Test would however be removal of the requirement would certainly ours where we have built retained, in order to check that delivery was taking help to simplify the system and reduce time. resilience into future housing place. But the housing delivery test penalises local numbers are being unfairly councils for failure to deliver, which is not in penalised. the councils’ control: it is developers that build houses, not local councils. Q9a It is proposed that radical improvements to community Removing the opportunity for people to Removing the opportunity for engagement at plan-making stage would be made, but comment at outline application stage would people to comment at outline that consultation on applications would be reduce local democratic involvement. application stage would reduce ‘streamlined’, removing the opportunity for people to While ‘front loading’ of this engagement at local democratic involvement. comment at outline planning application stage if an area plan making stage is proposed, this would The evidence from the of be very difficult within the restricted Neighbourhood Planning land is already identified for growth in a local plan. timescale set out for local plan preparation. Process is that communities are more amenable to development where they can understand growth being linked to local issues. Surely it is better to build on this approach which can provide greater flexibility in Plan production

Q9 Where a departure from the plan was proposed by a There is a significant lack of detail about Agree with LPA developer, a full planning application process would be how this process would work. What level of required and this would be decided based on departure from the Local Plan would consideration of national planning policy. require a planning application? Would there be a right of appeal? The reliance on national planning policy involves further centralisation of the planning process, removing local democracy from the decision making process. Q9c Decisions on new settlements could be made by the If a local authority supports the delivery of a Agree with LPA Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime, new community within its area, decisions rather than locally. about its form and design should be managed locally. Removing this to a national decision further removes local democracy from the process. Q10 Decision making should be faster and use digital Planning decisions often involve Agree with LPA. technology to establish whether proposals were consideration of complex interrelated For complex applications a ‘within the rules’. Supporting material for applications matters which cannot be dealt with by a technical document plus a should be no more than 50 pages long and technical consideration of rules. There is a need to summary standardised supporting information should be standardised. There weigh up the benefits of a proposal against document which is would be standard national planning conditions to the harm. Often the detail of any harm can accessible to lay people cover common issues. be complex and therefore limiting should be submitted justification for a proposal to 50 pages and together. standardising technical information runs the risk of removing the ability for full consideration of issues. Standard national conditions do not necessarily reflect local issues and the preferred local way of addressing them. Q11 Local plans are to be much shorter, no longer containing The greater reliance on digital means of Agree with LPA as this is a long lists of policies but instead a core set of standards communication will potentially particular concern for our and requirements. disadvantage older people, those in area which has a They are also proposed to be much more visual and deprived areas and those with certain combination of deprivation, map-based, on a standardised template based on the disabilities. demographic issues and a latest digital technology, so that as much as possible Standardisation of local plans also unique backdrop of a can be ‘read’ by computer, to give an immediate removes the potential for local innovation heritage estate and answer as to what development would be allowed, and distinctiveness. landscape which is not fully rather than weighing up various policy considerations. recognised Q12 A statutory timetable for local plan preparation is This restricted timescale would severely In order to meet the timescale proposed, of no more than 30 months in total, limit the front-loading of community set out we consider that it restricting the time over which such community engagement that could take place. would be better if LPAs could engagement can take place. Significantly more technical evidence would build on existing be needed to support a local plan if its Neighbourhood Plans proposals were to be granted automatic assigning Local Plan status to outline permission, and this would also be these. This would allow them difficult to achieve within the indicated to concentrate on strategic timescale. issues and those areas where a Neighbourhood Plan had not yet been formalised Q13 Neighbourhood plans would be retained, but their The retention of neighbourhood plans is Neighbourhood Plans must be content may need to become more focused so as to supported but it would be important to retained. Neighbourhood reflect the proposals for local plans, and to become clarify their role in the zoning system Plans could be more flexible in more digitally based proposed for local plans, including whether their production although any they would be able to change zoning or reduction in scope could whether they would be focused on local compromise community design codes. Neighbourhood plan groups interest and commitment. would need support in developing more Although it is understood that digital approaches. any simplification of process would be helpful. Q14 There would be a stronger emphasis on build- out and While the variety of development types The current delivery, and design codes and masterplans should seek within a site is one of the factors that can system lacks the to ensure a variety of development types within sites so affect delivery, there are others, including required upfront as to allow more phases to come forward at once. market absorption rates and the reliance investment to on the development sector for infrastructure infrastructure provision. Delays in house building nationally are not all due to the planning system – local planning authorities do not build houses.

PILLAR 2: PLANNING FOR BEAUTIFUL AND SUSTAINABLE PLACES Q15 What do you think about the design of new New developments are development that has happened recently in your area? ugly and poorly designed. (not too sure or indifferent/Beautiful and well We undertook a heritage designed/Ugly and poorly designed/There hasn’t been and character assessment any/Other – please specify) try to specifically address these issues. Q16 Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is Portland Town Council your priority for sustainability in your area ? (Less have declared a climate reliance on cars/More green and open spaces/Energy and ecological emergency Efficiency of new buildings/More trees/other- please so all of these are specify) important. This has been recognised in our Neighbourhood Plan. In order to avoid “building in climate change” sustainability of new buildings must be a priority. Q17 This section makes some welcome but very general The increased emphasis on design quality Agree with LPA. We have a statements about encouraging climate change is very welcome: the pressure for more particular resonance around mitigation and facilitating improvements in energy housing without stronger design policies design which reflects local efficiency standards through national policy, as well as has led to poor placemaking in recent values. being more ambitious about place making and the years. creation of beautiful places. Design codes can however be a relatively We have always considered A national design code is in preparation, to be taken into inflexible means of achieving quality, that the opportunities for account in all developments, and the preparation of and master planning requires the training and development local design codes within or alongside local plans is consideration of a wide range of factors within Neighbourhood proposed, as well as masterplanning of development other than appearance – in particular, the Planning has been largely in growth areas, as a condition of their automatic outline practicalities of implementation of overlooked. planning permission. development such as the timing of Local design codes may be developed by the local infrastructure provision, mitigation against planning authority, in neighbourhood plans, or by potential harm such as flooding or applicants, and should demonstrate empirical evidence harm to protected habitats or heritage of what is popular locally. interests, are often the matters over which ‘Popular and replicable forms of development’ would be a great deal of time and evidence is able to be approved easily and quickly. required before decisions can be made. Local design codes will be important to ensure that local character and context is reflected in new development, but will require significant resourcing and training, and the preparation of design codes and masterplans, particularly bearing in mind the importance of community engagement in the process, will take time, not necessarily making the system faster as envisaged. Design codes need to include the design and management of greenspace and public realm, not only the design of buildings. Q18 Do you agree that we should establish a new body to No. This is already in place support design coding and building better places, and that locally. each authority should have a chief officer for design and place-making No/Not sure. Q19 Do you agree with our proposal to consider how design In general our area has had a might be given greater emphasis in the strategic poor experience with Homes objectives for Homes England England. Q20 It is proposed to introduce a ‘fast track for It would be important to understand clearly Agree with LPA’s response beauty’ to incentivise and accelerate high quality how development would be assessed development which reflects local character and as meeting the criteria – presumably preference this would be linked to the national or local design codes. There is a risk that the use of pattern books or replication of popular designs will reduce local distinctiveness and result in greater homogeneity of developments. A more fundamental concern is that a development that is considered beautiful may not adequately deliver the other elements of place making such as infrastructure delivery or biodiversity mitigation but may qualify for ‘fast track for beauty’. The national planning framework for listed buildings We agree with the importance of We agree with LPA’s and conservation areas will be reviewed and updated, addressing climate change, but it is response. The need for strong to ensure their significance is conserved while important to take account of the latest placemaking is an important allowing, where appropriate, sympathetic changes to research into the energy efficiency of facet to planning in our area. support their continued use and address climate historic buildings, many of which do have change. high energy performance which may be The government is considering whether suitably harmed by subsequent adaptations. experienced architectural specialists should be We do not support the concept of certain regarded as having earned autonomy from routine consultants having exemption from listed listed building consents. building consents: few cases actually are ‘routine’ and it is difficult to retain objectivity without an independent assessment.

PILLAR 3: PLANNING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONNECTED PLACES Q21 When new development happens in your area We would like to see more what is your priority for what comes with it ? housing that is affordable (More affordable housing/More or better locally and that meets local infrastructure (such as transport,schools,health need, along with the provision)/Design of new buildings/More shops associated service and /or employment space/Green space/Don’t infrastructure. know/Other – please specify) Q22 This section sets out the proposal for a single The simplification of this system could reduce some of Agree with LPA’s response. infrastructure levy to replace the current the time and effort of negotiation, but the method of Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 working it out would be critical, in particular in relation The prevention of planning agreements. This would mean that to the amount of funding that would be secured. developer’s ability to renege affordable housing would be included in the Community Infrastructure Levy payments cover only a on S106 / CIL agreements single levy payment rather than being fraction of the cost of the total infrastructure required, due to viability needs negotiated separately. and affordable housing provided through development greater enforcement. is limited by development viability. The new levy payments would continue to be based on development viability, as they are proposed to be based on a proportion of development proceeds above a certain level, so it is likely that they will still not provide sufficient funding for all the infrastructure required. In addition, in areas where development viability was more favourable, a higher levy would be paid. This would result in a disproportionate amount of the levy being collected in some areas but no mechanism is suggested to redistribute this to areas where infrastructure need is greatest or where development is less viable (and consequently levy receipts are lower). Section 106 agreements are used not only for securing funding, but for in-kind provision and land transfers: it is not clear how these would be achieved under the proposed changes. Their purpose is enabling development to come forward that would otherwise be unacceptable. Q22 A number of alternatives are put forward in the Allowing for local variation is important in order to Agree with LPAs response paper, including a standard levy amount across maximise the potential gain from development in the whole country; a nationally set levy but with the more viable areas and avoid blocking Allowing for local variation is local variation within it to take account of development in the less viable areas, though setting important in order to maximise differences in development viability between the rates nationally would reduce the burden on the potential gain from areas; or locally set amounts, which would local authorities. Many existing development development in the more presumably need to go through a preparation allocations, where land value has already been set, viable areas and avoid blocking and consultation process similar to that may be unable to accommodate these changes development in the less viable currently carried out for the Community areas, though setting the rates Infrastructure Levy. nationally would reduce the burden on local authorities. Ensuring local viability should a priority. In awarding CIL or S106, priority should also be given to areas with high levels of social deprivation.

Q22 Should we allow local authorities to borrow The wider use of social against the Infrastructure levy to support improvement metrics as a infrastructure in their areas ? justification for accelerated funding has never been properly progressed.

If this were to be allowed, there must be a condition that the infrastructure levy must be spent on infrastructure projects within, or of benefit to, the town or parish where the original development was undertaken. Q22 Payment of the new levy would be due on Contributions payable at the end of the Same answer as previous. occupation of the properties development process may help cashflow but may delay the delivery of important prerequisites. The infrastructure levy must be compliant with the Habitats Regulations where it is being used to provide mitigation for potentially adverse impacts on protected habitats. Payment on occupation of properties is not likely to be sufficient if the harm has taken place at the start of building. Q23 The new infrastructure levy could be extended This is supported: it would increase the levy Agree with LPA response to capture changes of use through permitted base and mean that office to residential development rights, including office to conversions and agricultural conversions were residential conversions. contributing towards affordable housing and infrastructure provision. Q24a Do you agree that we should aim to secure at The need to provide both least the same amount of affordable housing social and affordable under the Infrastructure Levy, and as much on- housing requires site affordable provision, as at present ? enhancement to current funding levels.

We would like to see more housing that is affordable locally and that meets local need, along with the associated service infrastructure. Q24b Should affordable housing be secured as an in- As above kind payment towards the Infrastructure Levy , or as a ‘right to purchase’ at discounted rates Houses purchased at a for local authorities discount by local authorities must be used for people who are registered on the housing register. Q24c If an in kind approach is taken should we As above mitigate against local authority overpayment risk ?

Q24d If an in kind delivery approach is taken, are Affordable and social there additional steps that would need to be housing quality should not taken to support affordable housing quality? be differentiated from market housing to reinforce social co-hesion Q25 More freedom could be given to local It is unlikely that authorities will receive more Agree with LPA’s response authorities over how they spend the funding than is necessary to provide ‘core but also to reiterate the infrastructure levy: for example allowing them infrastructure obligations’ and there is a risk of issues previously raised to spend receipts on their policy priorities, separating the infrastructure benefits of around social, affordable including improving services or reducing council development from the communities in which it housing, services and tax, once core infrastructure obligations have takes place. infrastructure. been met. It would also be important to ring-fence the funding for affordable housing, to ensure We feel strongly that CIL ongoing provision. should not be used to reduce council tax or for other policy priorities. Q26 Do you have any views on the potential impact of For agreement the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as define in Section We agree with and standby 149 of the Equality Act 2010? the provisions and principles as set out within the act. 20 mph speed limits on Portland Why 20 mph on Portland?

• Resident requests • Reduce Accidents • Improve environment for pedestrians • Encourage alternatives (walking, cycling) • Improve safety for – Cyclists – Pedestrians – motorists Where

• Residential areas that can be easily defined • Areas that PTC have had complaints about speed or requests for speed limits or traffic calming Suggested 20 mph zone Easton zone showing streets Suggested 20 mph zone Westcliffe zone showing streets Suggested 20 mph zone Southwell Underhill 20mph

High street - from junction with Fortuneswell to Chiswell

Fortuneswell – from junction with Verne Common road as far as The Britannia Inn 20 mph

Road Traffic Regulation Act (Amendment) Order 1999, Highways Authorities no longer have to apply for permission to introduce a zone.

Two distinct types of 20mph speed limit possible:

• 20mph limits, which consist of just a speed limit change to 20mph which is indicated by the speed limit (and repeater) signs

• 20mph zones, which were designed to be “self-enforcing” due to the traffic calming measures that were introduced along with the change in the speed limit. 20mph limits, 20mph zones

20 mph zones require traffic calming measures (e.g. speed humps, chicanes) or repeater speed limit signing and/or roundel road markings at regular intervals, so that no point within a zone is more than 50 m from such a feature.

20 mph limits require roundel road markings at regular intervals, so that no point is more than 50 m from such a feature. Cheaper so can cover larger areas 20mph in Dorset

List below shows the areas covered by a 20mph limit or zone and the year that they came in effect. Beaminster – Various roads – 20mph limit – 2000 Broadwindsor – Various roads – 20mph limit – 2015 Blandford – 20mph zone – Town Centre – 2003 Blandford –Milldown Road/Jubilee Way – 20mph zone – 2003 Blandford St Mary – Various roads – 20mph limit – 2006 – Skilling Hill Rd, Alexandra Rd/Court and Watton Park – 20mph limit – 2005 Bridport – St Andrew’s Rd/Coneygar Rd – 20mph zone – 2004 Bridport – Victoria Grove – 20mph limit – 2008 Melbury Abbas – 20mph limit – 2006 Child Okeford – Various roads – 2006 Charminster – Various roads – 20mph zone – 2020 Dorchester – Coburg Road – 20mph limit – 2006 Dorchester – Fordington – 20mph zone – 2002 Dorchester – Victoria Road/ St Helens Road / Albert Road – 20mph zone – 2019 Durweston – 20mph limit – to be installed 2020 Ferndown – Cherry Grove – 20mph limit – 2006 Hampreston – 20mph limit – 2006 20mph in Dorset

Continued: List below shows the areas covered by a 20mph limit or zone and the year that they came in effect. Iwerne Minster – 20mph zone - 2018 Gillingham - Town Centre – 20mph limit – 1995 Shaftesbury – High Street / Salisbury Street – 20mph limit - 2016 Sherborne - Various roads – 20mph zone – 2002 Sixpenny Handley – 20mph limit – 2005 Witchampton – 20mph zone – 2004 Wimborne - Chapel Lane/East Borough – 20mph limit – 2004 Wimborne - Town Centre – 20mph limit – 2005 - Southdown Rd/Hillcrest Rd area – 20mph limit – 2001 Weymouth and Portland - Faircross Ave/Everest Rd area – 20mph limit – 2001 Weymouth and Portland - Goldcroft Rd area – 20mph zone – 2004 (2009 for Longcroft Lane) Weymouth and Portland – Nottington Lane – 20mph zone - 2004 Weymouth and Portland – Park District – 20mph zone Weymouth and Portland – Westham – 20mph zone –2019 (old sections 2005) Evidence to support our case

Formal Accident reports Other reports by residents Requests from residents Support from residents Safety Savings from accident reduction versus cost of implementation Underhill Accidents last 5 years https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/roads-highways-maintenance/road-safety/road- traffic-collision-map.aspx Easton/Weston Accidents last 5 years Southwell/Bill Accidents last 5 years Where do we go from here?

Actions

1. Make decision on whether to proceed 2. Gather supporting evidence 3. Decide on areas 4. Demonstrate public support 5. Submit case to Highways Authority