Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh SO50 9YN
2000/01 Community Safety Preventing Crime and Disorder 2002/03 Fostering Business Growth 30 November 2007
NOTICE OF MEETING
CABINET will meet on Monday, 10 December 2007 beginning at 6:00 pm in the Committee Room, Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh
TO: Members of Cabinet
Councillor Keith House (Chair) Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Resources Councillor Anne Winstanley (Vice-Chair) Cabinet Member for Social Policy Councillor David Airey Cabinet Member for Transport & Streetscene Councillor Louise Bloom Cabinet Member for Environment Councillor Alan Broadhurst Cabinet Member for Leisure Councillor Cathie Fraser Cabinet Member for Health Councillor Chris Thomas Cabinet Member for Customer Service & ICT Councillor Peter Wall Cabinet Member for Business & Skills
Staff Contact: Alison Wright, Democratic Services Officer Tel: 023 8068 8111; Email: [email protected]
RICHARD WARD Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Copies of this and all other agendas can be accessed via the Council's website - http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/meetings as well as in other formats, including Braille, audio, large print and other languages, upon request.
Members of the public are invited to speak on general items at the start of the meeting, and on individual agenda items at the time the item is discussed. To register please contact the Democratic Services Officer above. AGENDA
1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 6)
To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2007.
2. Apologies
3. Declarations of Interest
ENGINEERING
4. Parking Controls in Hamble Village (Pages 7 - 48)
PLANNING POLICY & ENVIRONMENT
5. Consultation by Hampshire County Council on the Hampshire Minerals Plan (Pages 49 - 88)
6. Local Development Scheme Annual Monitoring Report (Pages 89 - 92)
7. Urban Character Area Appraisals (Pages 93 - 132)
8. Eastleigh Thursday and Saturday Markets (To Follow)
9. Adoption of Carbon Compensation Policy Paper as Part of Going Carbon Neutral by 2012 (Pages 133 - 148)
10. Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan 2008-2012 (To Follow)
11. Vehicle and Plant Replacement Programme (To Follow)
12. Domestic Refuse – Policy on Agreed Start Time for Collections (To Follow)
STRATEGIC ISSUES
13. Strategic Priorities Progress Update (Pages 149 - 168)
14. Joint Working (To Follow)
FINANCE
15. Corporate Financial Monitoring (To Follow)
16. Fees and Charges (Pages 169 - 204)
17. The Point Taxation Considerations (Pages 205 - 210)
18. CIP Strategy Review (To Follow)
19. CIP - Schemes Approval (To Follow)
20. Concessionary Fares - Annual Report (Pages 211 - 222)
21. Exempt Business
To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of the following item of business on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
The Schedule 12A categories have been amended and are now subject to the public interest test, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This comes into effect on 1st March 2006.
It is considered that the following item is exempt from disclosure and that the public interest in not disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
EXEMPT ITEM
22. Concessionary Fares - National Bus Pass Scheme (Pages 223 - 232)
DATE OF NEXT MEETING Thursday, 10 January 2008 at 6:00 pm in the Committee Room, Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1 1
CABINET
Thursday, 1 November 2007 (5:30 pm – 5:47 pm)
PRESENT:
Councillor House (Chair); Councillors Winstanley, Airey, Bloom, A Broadhurst, Mrs Fraser, Thomas and Wall
Also in attendance: Councillor Norgate ______
RECOMMENDED ITEMS (REQUIRING A DECISION)
49. APPOINTMENT TO PUSH OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Issue
To make appointments to the PUSH Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Paper 6).
Considerations
At its meeting on 19 July 2007, Council approved the establishment of a formal Joint Committee for the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) and a Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the activities of the PUSH Joint Committee. Council also agreed that a non- Cabinet Member and a non-Cabinet Deputy Member be appointed to serve on the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee and that these places be offered respectively to the Conservative and Labour Groups. However, this was subject to the appointments made by the other PUSH authorities.
It is recommended that a non-Cabinet Member be appointed to serve on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee with a second non-Cabinet Member also appointed to serve as deputy member in their absence. As each authority is appointing fewer than three members to the Committee, it is an exception to the general definition of bodies to which proportionality applies. Therefore, the authority has, provided the appointed member and deputy are non-Cabinet Members, complete discretion as to whom is appointed.
RECOMMENDED –
That appointments be made to the PUSH Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
1 2
50. CIP - SCHEMES APPROVAL
Issue
To approve schemes as part of the four-year Community Investment Programme (CIP) (Paper 7).
Considerations
The Council approved a 4-Year Strategy in April 2002 and since then reports have been submitted, on a regular basis, to the Executive/Cabinet seeking approval for schemes to progress. The Cabinet approved a revised Community Investment Strategy on 3 April 2006 which updated the programme for 2006/07 to 2010/11.
This report seeks further approvals to be financed from funds earmarked for the CIP.
The report also advises that expenditure is being incurred in advance of Capital Receipts being received and the measurement of this risk is embodied in the new Prudential Code of Practice for Capital Finance. A requirement of the Code is to continually monitor the Prudential Indicators and report to the Cabinet any changes resulting from the CIP Strategy. Any proposed change in borrowing limits requires approval by the Council. The changes to the Indicators resulting from alterations to the Strategy as a result of the schemes in the report are shown in Appendix B to the report.
RECOMMENDED -
That the Council be recommended to approve the changes to the Prudential Indicators (Appendix B).
RESOLVED –
(1) That £200,000 to enable County Architects to develop a detailed feasibility study to provide a 300 seat professional standard auditorium in the Hedge End area in 2007/08 to be financed from monies earmarked to fund the CIP be approved; and
(2) That the approval of schemes granted since 1 April 2006 (Appendix A) be noted.
(NOTE: Councillors Bloom and House declared a personal interest in this item but remained in the room during its consideration and voted.)
2 3
RESOLVED ITEMS (SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS ONLY)
51. MINUTES
RESOLVED -
That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2007 be agreed as a correct record.
52. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members were invited to declare interests in relation to items of business on the agenda. Any interests declared are recorded in the relevant minute below.
53. HOMECHOICE HOUSING REGISTER
Issue
To approve the amended Homechoice Housing Register (Paper 4).
Considerations
The current Homechoice Allocations Policy was approved by Cabinet on 6 January 2005. Since then a major review of the Homechoice Housing Register has been undertaken which has shown that Homechoice no longer complies with case law. As a result, the Allocations Policy has been amended and is attached to the report for approval.
The main changes include:
• The addition of a fourth band to ensure that an applicant's cumulative needs spanning more than one reasonable preference can be taken into account.
• Re-categorisation of housing circumstances into reasonable preference groups.
• Removal of the annual lettings plan with allocations being made according to priorities only.
• Use of labelling on property descriptions restricting allocations for persons with a local connection only.
• Changes to the membership and operation of the Housing Support Panel to ensure that those with the expertise in supported housing are part of the decision making allocation process.
3 4
• Simplification of RSL transfer applicants application dates and the application of consistent policies between all RSL tenants in the borough.
At its meeting on 12 September 2007 Social Policy Scrutiny Panel considered this report and agreed to recommend to Cabinet to approve and adopt the amended Homechoice Housing Register subject to:
(1) The policy being clarified with regard to the application date being the date of the original application and not the date of application onto the amended Homechoice Housing Register for purposes of prioritisation;
(2) The examination of the section regarding preference to those applicants with a local connection to consider those who have a local connection when they first apply but due to changes in their circumstances whilst on the register may no longer be defined as having a local connection;
(3) Consideration being given to the amendment of adverts to give greater emphasis to the number of bed need rather than the actual number of bedrooms.
Jenny Stark, Housing Needs Manager, advised that the draft policy and the adverts could be amended to take into account (1) and (3) above. She confirmed that (2) above could be dealt with by officers as the policy makes provision for a person to have a local connection with an authority under 'special circumstances'. This would allow an applicant to be given a local connection in the circumstance detailed in (2) above, and the normal routes of appeal would apply if the applicant did not agree with the decision.
RESOLVED –
(1) That the amended Homechoice Housing Register be approved and adopted subject to the amendment of the draft policy and the adverts to take into account the recommendations from Social Policy Scrutiny Panel as detailed in (1) and (3) above; and
(2) That consideration be given to providing training for all Councillors on the Homechoice Housing Register.
(NOTE: Councillor Thomas declared a prejudicial interest in this item and left the room during its consideration and voting.)
54. PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS IN THE UNPARISHED AREAS
Issue
To endorse a public poll to assess whether the unparished areas of the Borough should be parished (Paper 5).
4 5
Considerations
The report updates the report considered by Cabinet on 2 April 2007 which outlined the issues and implications of one of the key elements of the Local Government White Paper, Strong and Prosperous Communities relating to the intention to devolve the power to create parishes to district/borough and unitary authorities.
It is emphasised that it is likely that the new regime of district/borough/unitary councils being able to create parish/town councils will not be in place until after April 2008 and that the first elections for any new council(s) will not take place until 2009. In the meantime the report suggests that the debate is opened now which would include a poll to establish options and key issues for consideration.
The report was considered by Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Local Area Committee on 3 October 2007 where it was resolved that the report be noted and that issues raised by the Committee be reported to Cabinet. The points reported included:
• Data would be required from other parish councils on the cost of running a council (premises, clerk, etc.) and the extra things they do; • Questions need to be asked regarding the number of parish councils residents would want to cover the area of Chandler’s Ford & Hiltingbury; • There would need to be further information on the poll regarding the cost, who would fund it, when it would take place, and how it would be worded; • The consultation would be through a community governance review; • The boundary of parishes would need to be defined; and • Assurance would be sought that Council will not ignore poll results.
It was confirmed that the poll would be funded corporately.
The report was also considered by Eastleigh Local Area Committee on 30 October 2007 where it was resolved that consideration should be given to where boundaries would be drawn between parishes.
It was advised that there had been a public meeting in Allbrook on 28 September 2007 to discuss the creation of a parish council. At this meeting the majority of residents had expressed support for the creation of a parish council but there had been concerns regarding the boundary of any parish council.
RESOLVED –
(1) That the views of Eastleigh Local Area Committee, Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Local Area Committee and the Boyatt and Allbrook Residents Group be noted;
5 6
(2) That consideration be given to where boundaries would be drawn between parishes, and that the appropriate consultation be carried out; and
(3) That, once (2) above is completed, a public poll commence so as to begin assessing whether the unparished areas of the Borough should be parished.
______
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Declarations of interest were made as follows:
Minute Title Member Reason CIP Schemes Approval Councillors They have children that Bloom and attend Wildern School House Homechoice Housing Councillor He is on the Register Thomas Homechoice Housing Register
M3476
6 Agenda Item 4
BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE & HOUND
LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE
Tuesday 27 November 2007
CABINET
Monday 10 December 2007
PARKING CONTROLS IN HAMBLE VILLAGE
Report of the Head of Transportation & Engineering
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee:
1. Expresses its views on the following issues relating to The Square car park, for the further consideration of Cabinet:
(i) Charging in The Square car park between 8am and 8pm, seven days a week, at 50p per hour.
(ii) Limiting the length of stay in the car park to four hours OR allowing all- day parking.
(iii) The duration of the initial free period.
(iv) Exempting resident and business permit holders (if permits are issued) from hourly charges.
2. Implement a Traffic Regulation Order (subject to the outcome of public advertisement) for a resident and business permit parking scheme and other on-street parking controls as follows:
(i) All residential and business properties within the boundary shown in Drawing No. E/TM/01/M/22/012 (Appendix 8) to be entitled to a maximum of two permits, which would be valid in The Square car park or any adjacent on-street designated permit parking area.
(ii) Residential properties within the boundary to be entitled to 75 days of visitor permits per year, increasing by 25 per adult if more than one adult resides at the property. Visitor permits would only be valid in on-street designated permit parking areas.
(iii) Any new developments within the boundary granted planning approval after the Traffic Regulation Order has come into effect will not be entitled
7 to permits.
(iv) Any on-street parking controls to operate during the same times as parking controls in The Square car park (with the exception of ‘no waiting’ (yellow line) restrictions).
(v) Meadow Lane, The Bartletts and Farm Close to be designated as a ‘permit parking zone’ (Appendix 9).
(vi) A parking bay to be provided on the western side of Hamble House Gardens for free long term parking. The remaining sections of the road to be controlled by a ‘no waiting at any time’ (double yellow line) restriction (Appendix 9).
(vii) Three hour time limited parking directly outside of St Andrew’s Church in High Street (Appendix 9).
(viii) Two hour time limited parking on the eastern side of Satchell Lane (between Marina Drive and 20 Satchell Lane). Permit holders to be exempt from the time limit if permits are issued (Appendix 7).
(ix) Two hour time limited parking in the layby on the western side of Satchell Lane, adjacent to the car park (Appendix 7).
(x) 30 minute time limited parking in The Quay, to serve as a drop-off area for river users (Appendix 6).
3. Expresses its views on the following permit charges, for the further consideration of Cabinet:
(i) Resident permits £50 per annum each.
(ii) Business permits £100 per annum each.
4. Authorise officers to discuss the parking arrangements in the village with Hamble Parish Council, particularly relating to the use of permits in the Foreshore car park.
5. Undertakes a review of direction signing for all parking areas in the village, including the longer term parking in marked bays in Hamble House Gardens, Copse Lane and Spitfire Way, the BP car park and the common car park adjacent to the pumping station
6. Instructs officers to negotiate with BP regarding the potential use of their land off Copse Lane for longer term public parking provision.
7. Approves funding of £5,000 from its unallocated reserves to enable further legal investigation to take place to formalise a reduced area of parking to that which already takes place on part of the village Green.
8. Monitors the parking situation in the village following the implementation of new parking controls in The Square and on-street, to determine whether an
8 additional long stay parking facility is justified in addition to the 127 spaces already identified in this report.
It is recommended that Cabinet:
1. Approves funding of £43,000 from the Community Investment Programme for implementing on-street and car park Traffic Regulation Orders.
2. Confirms the following relating to The Square car park:
(i) Hourly parking charge and operating times.
(ii) Limiting the length of stay in the car park to four hours OR allowing all- day parking.
(iii) The duration of the initial free period.
(iv) Exempting resident and business permit holders (if permits are issued) from hourly charges.
3. Confirms the following charges for:
(i) Resident permits £50 per annum each.
(ii) Business permits £100 per annum each.
4. Approves growth for loss of income (sum dependent on the chosen initial free parking period in The Square car park – see Appendix 10, item iii).
5. Approves £4,500 ongoing revenue growth for administration of a residents parking scheme.
Summary
Following a study into parking in the village, proposals were put forward for on and off- street parking controls. The views received so far are discussed and various options on how parking can be managed are dealt with in this report.
Statutory Powers Section 42 Highways Act 1980; Agreement dated 14 December 2004 between Hampshire County Council and Eastleigh Borough Council by virtue of Section 19 of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Local Authorities (Arrangements and Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2000 and by virtue of Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970; Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Introduction
1. When public consultation on the environmental improvements to The Square was carried out it emerged that there were local concerns about the effect of
9 the proposals on parking in the centre of the village. In response to this, consultants were employed to investigate the nature of parking in the village and to identify if any changes to parking arrangements were needed.
2. The consultants (whose report is currently available on our website at www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-3303) concluded that a parking strategy should include, amongst other issues:
• Charges and a four hour time limit in The Square car park;
• Consideration of a residents parking scheme;
• Consistent charges and time limits between The Foreshore and The Square car parks;
• A formal provision of up to 100 spaces should be provided for long stay parking.
3. The consultants also undertook a study to investigate potential areas in and around the village where formal long stay parking facilities could be provided.
4. This report considers the need for parking controls in the village and makes reference to public involvement and the opinions that have been received. It should be noted that the majority of issues relating to costs and revenue require decisions from Cabinet, therefore the Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee is required to express a view only on those matters.
Objectives
5. The car park at The Square is the most convenient and accessible public parking area that motorists arrive at as they drive into the centre of the village. It is closer to the various shops and businesses in The Square and High Street than The Foreshore car park. The main objective is therefore to promote this as a car park for visitors to the village and to deter long stay parking.
6. In addition to this, there is a need to introduce controls in the car park to ensure disabled and motorcycle bays are respected and to stop vehicles from parking out of bays. Cars can often be seen parked on footways, which is not only a nuisance to pedestrians but can cause damage too. Vehicles parked out of bays can obstruct other vehicles manoeuvring within the car park. It also detracts significantly from the greatly enhanced environment that the new scheme has provided.
7. Introducing controls in The Square car park is likely to require other new on- street parking controls, as detailed further in this report.
10 Original parking proposals
8. In April 2007 Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) proposing new controls in The Square car park and in Satchell Lane were advertised for public comment.
9. The proposals were:
• The Square car park: charges at 50p per hour up to a maximum four hours between 8am and 6pm, Monday to Saturday (first half hour free);
• Satchell Lane: on-street parking between The Square and Marina Drive reserved for resident permit holders, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Saturday. One permit available per property without off-street parking.
10. 83 objections were received, the majority of which were from residents living in the centre of the village, and river users. There were also objections from businesses and residents in neighbouring streets.
11. The most common concern was from residents in the centre of the village with no off-street parking, who were unhappy that the proposed ‘permit only’ parking bays would not provide space for enough vehicles. The complaint from sailors and river users was that they need to use the car park for long stay parking due to insufficient space elsewhere. Similar comments were made by those businesses who objected, concerned about where their staff would be able to park if there was a four hour time limit.
12. In response to these concerns a series of workshop-style meetings took place with various groups consisting of residents, businesses and river users, largely involving those who had submitted objections. Council staff asked questions of these groups about parking issues which they then discussed and answered.
13. Amongst the groups, other than residents, there appeared to be acceptance of a need for charging and controls in The Square car park, but maintaining an initial free period was important. The clearest message from these meetings was that those residents who do not have any off-road parking should be able to park in The Square for longer than four hours.
14. When the issue of other users in this car park arose, just under half of the workshop groups stated that The Square car park is important to the needs of businesses, with some suggesting that a type of business permit scheme should be developed.
15. The possibility of a new permanent long stay parking facility was also discussed within the groups, with reference to the consultants’ study on possible long stay parking on undeveloped land. The potential area favoured by most of the groups was the land off School Lane and at the pumping station (south of Donkey Derby Field). Other areas favoured by the groups included the car park at Roy Underdown Pavilion, private land off Copse Lane, and Donkey Derby Field.
11 Additional residents parking scheme
16. Due to concerns over parking in Hamble House Gardens, Meadow Lane, Farm Close and The Bartletts, a survey was undertaken to determine the level of support for different arrangements of a residents parking scheme. These roads are already used for parking by non-residential vehicles and this is likely to increase if controls are introduced in The Square car park.
17. Questionnaires were sent to all properties in these roads in April 2007 to gain residents’ views on three options as follows:
1: Permit-only parking in Meadow Lane, The Bartletts and Farm Close. No marked bays would be required. In Hamble House Gardens there would be a time limited parking bay although permit holders would be exempt. The rest of Hamble House Gardens would be controlled with yellow lines.
2: Permit only parking in all of these roads. No parking bays or yellow lines would be required. Vehicles can park anywhere so long as a permit is displayed.
3: Parking would only be permitted in marked bays in these roads. They would not be reserved for permit holders and would have a time limited maximum stay.
18. There was a 64% response rate, with a majority in support of some type of permit scheme. Option 3 was the least favoured. However, there was no clear preference between Options 1 and 2, and the response on whether to allow residents without off-street parking to park in their streets with a permit was also split (60% in favour, 40% against).
Parking at The Green
19. Vehicles have been parking on a gravel area at the eastern side of The Green for many years, as highlighted on Drawing No. E/TM/01/M/22/015 in Appendix 1. However, this gravel area is deemed to be part of The Green and it has been brought to the Council’s attention that village green status does not permit parking.
20. The Council needs to investigate what can be done to continue to allow some parking in this area, although improvements to the layout would be needed so that it does not interfere with access to neighbouring properties.
Long stay parking areas
21. The consultants’ initial parking report suggested there may be a need to provide a permanent long stay parking facility that could accommodate up to 100 vehicles. A subsequent report was undertaken by the consultants to investigate the various parcels of undeveloped land in and around the village, including existing space on roads that could potentially be used for long stay parking.
12 22. More than 30 sites have been considered, most of which have been ruled out due to issues of ownership, environmental cost and accessibility/convenience.
23. Two preferred sites that were identified at the public exhibition (see below) are the Donkey Derby Field on Green Lane and the land between this field and the pumping station in School Lane (often referred to as being part of Hamble Common). One of the main difficulties of providing a car park on these areas of land is a covenant which prevents it being used for this purpose.
24. Another site that could be investigated further is the existing pumping station car park and surrounding land in School Lane. There may be potential for expanding the existing car park and there are likely to be fewer legal and environmental obstacles compared to the areas mentioned above.
25. Although these three sites (which are shown in Appendix 1) are in public ownership, in addition to the legal difficulties mentioned above, there are environmental and planning constraints to consider too. For instance, the land south of Donkey Derby Field is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. All these issues would need further investigation before it can be determined whether any site is suitable for an expansion of parking.
26. There is an area of land alongside one of the less frequently used accesses to the BP oil terminal, off Copse Lane. The Council already has an agreement with BP to use some of this land for a small number of visitor parking spaces to serve Hamble Copse. It may be possible to use more of this land for parking, which could provide approximately 25 spaces. Discussions with BP will be necessary to explore this further.
27. Before considering a new long stay car park further, it would be practical to make better use of suitable areas that already exist. It is suggested that the following areas could be formally signed and marked for parking, which could provide approximately 127 formal long term spaces within a short walking distance of the village, as shown in Table 1 below.
28. The first four of these areas (95 spaces) are rarely used for parking, even during particularly busy events in Hamble during the summer, so they could avoid the need to provide a new long stay parking area. Marked parking bays in Copse Lane and Spitfire Way may encourage people to use these areas. Provisional layouts of how parking can be safely accommodated in these roads are shown in Drawing Nos, E/EC/00/D/64/005 (Appendix 2) and E/EC/00/D/64/006 (Appendix 3).
29. There is also the car park at the Roy Underdown Pavilion which could be better used at times that the facilities there are not in use which could provide up to another 36 spaces.
Location Potential number of Comment spaces
Land owned by BP 25 Requires agreement with BP and improvements to
13 off Copse Lane parking area.
Copse Lane 36 Marked and signed on- street parking bays.
Pumping station 12 Requires improvement car park and signing.
(School Lane)
Spitfire Way 22 Marked and signed on- street parking bays.
Hamble Green 20 Subject to deregistration and consultation
Hamble House 12 Part of West Side only Gardens
TOTAL 127
Table 1: utilising existing space for parking
30. It can be concluded therefore that if controls are introduced on The Square car park there is already potential for well over 100 free long term spaces a few minutes from the village centre that can be made available.
Public exhibition
31. An exhibition was held in October 2007 to display information on specific parking proposals for the village and also to seek views on other parking issues where more guidance from the public was needed.
32. 177 comment forms were completed. Unfortunately, copies of the form ran out during the final 15 minutes that the exhibition was open, but it is understood that those who requested forms during this time were either sent one the next day or advised how they could submit their comments. A copy of the comment form is in Appendix 4.
33. The exhibition included information on:
• proposed times and charges in The Square car park;
• options on a permit scheme for residents without off-road parking,
• issues relating to a business permit scheme;
• three hour time limited parking outside of St Andrew’s church in High Street;
• the possibility of a new long stay parking area.
14 34. A summary of the responses received to questions on the comment form are shown in Appendix 5. Almost 90% of those who commented were residents, half of whom also described themselves as river users. 18% were businesses, which included a number of residents who run businesses in the village.
35. In terms of a residents parking scheme for those residents without off-street parking, there was a clear majority of respondents in favour of the option which would allow permit holders to use The Square car park and parking bays in Satchell Lane (which was to be Pay & Display parking for all other users).
36. The exhibition made no reference to a permit scheme for residents in the Hamble House Gardens/Meadow Lane area due to the lack of a consensus following the earlier survey. However, 11 per cent of respondents did make a comment on their form that a permit scheme should be provided if charges are introduced in The Square.
37. Two-thirds of the respondents also believed that a permit scheme should include businesses, with the preferred areas for business parking being The Foreshore and The Square car parks.
38. In respect of possible long stay parking areas, the favourite choice was Donkey Derby Field. The BP private parking area off Copse Lane was added as an option too but not chosen by many respondents. Its limited size and location does not make it particularly suitable as a principle long stay parking site for the village, but it may be of use to complement other parking facilities.
39. Other general comments submitted included requests not to do anything at all with the parking (8% of respondents); suggestions to use the car park at Roy Underdown Pavilion for long stay parking (7%); that the marinas should take a greater responsibility for managing parking for sailors (8%); and that a new long stay parking area should be provided before charges are introduced in The Square (7%).
40. There have been some calls for a drop-off area at The Quay to cater for river users who need to unload sailing equipment. There is limited space within the existing road width to do this. It would be necessary for the retaining wall alongside The Quay to be moved back if a formal parking bay were to be provided along this length of road, at considerable expense. It should be possible, however, to provide a short length of parking bay at the southern end of The Quay at the entrance to the dinghy park which could be used for loading as it would be long enough for a vehicle to park with a trailer. This is illustrated in Drawing No. E/EC/00D/64/005 (Appendix 6). A time restriction, such as 30 minutes, would need to be in place to make most use of this bay.
Options for The Square car park
(i) Do nothing
15 41. As reported above, 7% of those who attended the exhibition and completed a response form commented that nothing should be done in The Square until a new long stay car park has been provided, but if a new long stay car park can be provided for the village it is likely to be some time away.
42. The objectives for this car park are to make it more available for visitors and to prevent vehicles from parking out of bays, damaging the works and causing an obstruction. Leaving the car park as it is now would not address this as no enforcement can be carried out.
(ii) Minor parking controls to prevent obstructive parking
43. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) could be introduced in the car park so that parking out of bay or abuse of disabled and motorcycle bays can be enforced. No time restriction or charges would have to apply. This would help to address the indiscriminate parking on footways and around the car park on busier days, but this would not reduce the level of long stay parking that occurs, there would be no permit scheme for residents without off-street parking and no income to pay for enforcement.
44. Although enforcement would take place, it would not be particularly frequent, most likely at the same level as currently occurs for existing double yellow line restrictions in the village. It is possible that infrequent enforcement would not act as a deterrent and therefore the obstructive parking in the car park could continue.
45. The parking enforcement team is based in Eastleigh town centre and mobile patrols enforce restrictions in the outer areas of the Borough such as Hamble. Penalty Charge Notices issued in Hamble would not alone cover the costs of providing parking enforcement in this area, therefore more frequent enforcement requires additional revenue to cover the cost of providing the service, such as car park charges. This is also why a residents parking scheme with free permits cannot be considered.
(iii) Short stay parking without charges
46. A four hour time limit could be introduced in The Square without any charges. This would help meet the objectives for this car park. However, the comment about the frequency of enforcement as described above equally applies to this option.
47. The enforcement of free time limited parking areas, whether on-street or in a car park, is very time consuming and expensive. The parking attendant has to visit the parking area twice, noting times and vehicle details, in order to determine whether a vehicle has overstayed. Pay & Display enforcement, on the other hand, is less time consuming because the parking attendant simply has to check the time on the ticket displayed in the vehicle. The cost of enforcing free time limited parking is therefore at least twice that of enforcing Pay & Display parking.
16 48. As demand for the car park is continuous, the controls can be justified seven days a week, including bank holidays. Demand also continues into the evening due to pubs and restaurants, so the controls could be applied up to 8pm.
(iv) Short stay parking with charges
49. Introducing charges as well as a four hour time limit will lead to more frequent enforcement. It will also help offset the cost of the residents parking scheme.
50. The charges originally advertised were 50p per hour for up to four hours. There has been little comment about the level of these charges. The debate has mainly centred on the initial free period, which was proposed at half-an- hour. There have been some requests that this should be longer, possibly up to 18 hours.
(v) Short and long stay parking without charges
51. A similar situation to option (iii) would be to allow a certain period of free parking but to only impose an upper limit on length of stay, such as 18 or 24 hours. Whilst this would prevent people parking for several days at a time and maintain a free car park for the village, it would not promote a frequent turnaround of use of the car park during the day.
52. This could also cause difficulties for those residents without off-road parking because it would not be possible to introduce a residents parking scheme and thereby issue a permit to exempt residents for the time limit. This is because there needs to be an income from parking charges to cover the costs. There would also be less likelihood of spaces being available for residents to use.
(v) Short and long stay parking with charges
53. The car park could operate in a similar way to the Parish Council’s proposals for The Foreshore car park, whereby charges would apply between 8am and 8pm (at 50p an hour) and motorists could park in any space for any length of time. Parking for longer than 24 hours would not be allowed (except permit holders).
54. Although this would still enable all day parking to take place, the charges would deter some of the long stay parking that occurs at present and promote a turnaround of use of the spaces.
55. The initial free parking period could be longer if the car park allows all-day parking, and this will need to be considered.
Options for resident parking
56. Charges will have to be made for permits under a residents parking scheme because there are ongoing enforcement and administration costs. It would also rely on revenue from Pay & Display car park charges to cover these costs.
17 57. The original proposals restricted the residents parking scheme to those properties in the centre of the village without off-road parking, and only one permit would have been issued per property. There are very limited areas for parking in the village which is why a permit scheme has to be restricted.
58. It should be noted that resident and business permit schemes cannot guarantee a parking space. Also, if a permit scheme is introduced it will have to be established whether the Parish Council will accept the permits in its Foreshore car park.
59. A series of options for a residents parking scheme are outlined below. An option has not been provided for only allowing permit holders to use designated on-street parking bays (that is, not allowing permit holders in The Square car park) because this is unlikely to provide enough space for residents and businesses.
60. In order to be consistent with other residents parking schemes in the Borough, it is recommended that new residential or commercial developments that are constructed after the scheme has been implemented shall not be entitled to permits. This would be applied to new developments that lead to an increased demand for parking, such as a house that is converted into flats. This would only apply to new developments within the area entitled to permits that are granted planning approval after Traffic Regulation order has come into effect.
(i) Permit scheme only for residents without off-road parking
61. There are approximately 30 residential properties in High Street, The Square and Satchell Lane that have no off-road parking. The permit scheme could be provided only for these residents to enable them to park in The Square without paying hourly charges, although it is suggested that up to two permits (at £50 each per annum) rather than one are available per property in order to make the scheme more practical for residents. Limiting a scheme to these properties would help minimise the number of potential resident vehicles left in The Square for long periods.
62. The eastern side of Satchell Lane (south of Marina Drive) which is already used for parking, could be designated for permit holders only but also allow vehicles without a permit to park free for up to two hours. This is shown in Appendix 7.
(ii) Permit scheme for any resident in the village centre
63. Instead of restricting the scheme to those residents without off-road parking, it could be made available to residents in the centre of the village whose property is within the area shown in Drawing No. E/TM/01/M/22/012 (Appendix 8). This would simplify the system in terms of assessing what is and what is not suitable off-road parking.
64. This option would take into account the concerns from residents in the Hamble House Gardens and Meadow Lane area, many of whom have
18 commented that if restrictions are introduced in The Square that more people will park in the roads near their homes to avoid the time limit and/or charges.
65. Meadow Lane, including The Bartletts and Farm Close would become a ‘permit parking zone’, which would not require marked parking bays or yellow lines, but vehicles would need to display a permit wherever they park in the road (this would need non-standard traffic signs and therefore authorisation would be required from the Secretary of State). It is suggested that if this is done, parking on the western side of Hamble House Gardens is left for long term parking to make the best use of this road space, although yellow line controls would be required on the opposite side and around junctions.
66. Each property in the area highlighted in Appendix 8 would be entitled to up to two permits at £50 per annum, plus a limited number of permits for their visitors. The resident and visitor permits would be valid in the on-street permit areas in Meadow Lane, The Bartletts, Farm Close and Satchell Lane, although only resident permits should be valid in The Square car park.
67. Whilst this would significantly increase the number of properties entitled to permits, it is not anticipated that it would encourage any more residential parking in The Square car park than option (i) would create. This is because most residents in the Meadow Lane area will still choose to park close to their homes and those in the Satchell Lane and High Street area who have off-road parking are likely to use that in preference to the car park. The permit charge will also be a deterrent to those that already have adequate parking.
(iii) Do nothing
68. If minimal or no parking controls are introduced in The Square car park then a residents parking scheme is not recommended. The income alone from permit charges and penalty charge notices would not cover the cost of operating and enforcing a scheme here.
Business parking options
69. Two thirds of the people who completed comment forms at the exhibition supported the possibility of providing permits for businesses. It was generally believed that such permits should entitle businesses to park in The Foreshore and The Square car parks.
(i) No business permits
70. There are at least 30 businesses in High Street and The Square. Providing permits to allow businesses to park all day in The Square could limit the amount of space left for visitors, especially if resident permits are valid there too (there are 65 spaces in The Square). Not allowing businesses to park all day in The Square would help to keep a regular turnover of short stay spaces.
71. The Parish Council is intending to allow long stay parking in any space in its Foreshore car park therefore business staff could pay to use that for all-day parking.
19 72. It is worth noting that there are two bus services serving the centre of Hamble. Whilst this may not be an option for everyone, it could provide an alternative to the car for some commuters. First Bus operate a twenty minute frequency service from Southampton and Solent Blue Line provides an hourly daytime service from Eastleigh.
(ii) Limited numbers of business permits
73. If permits are issued to businesses there need to be limits set to prevent the majority of public parking space in the village from being occupied by businesses and their staff.
74. Those businesses in most need of permits would be those without off-street parking, of which there are estimated to be approximately 18 in number. There would also have to be limits set on the number of permits each business could be entitled to. The permits would have to be specific to particular vehicles too, so it is questionable if a business has several members of staff how useful a single permit would be.
75. Permits could be issued according to the number of staff employed, but there would be difficulties setting the limit. It could be argued that an estate agent with five staff, for example, is more in need of permits then a restaurant with ten staff, due the nature of their business. Staff numbers may vary throughout the year as well, so allocating permits based on the number of employees would not be simple.
76. To simplify the scheme it is suggested that there should be no more than two permits issued per business property (whether or not they have off street parking) at a cost of £100 each per annum. Any business within the area highlighted in Appendix 8 would be entitled to apply. The permits would be valid in The Square car park and the designated on-street permit areas. The Parish Council could be encouraged to allow the use of these permits in the Foreshore car park.
77. It is difficult to estimate the effect this could have on the availability of parking space in The Square, and this would need to be monitored.
Options for High Street (near St Andrews church)
78. At the moment cars only tend to park outside of the church on busier days. If controls are brought into The Square car park then parking in this part of High Street will become more common.
(i) Do nothing
79. A ‘wait and see’ approach could be adopted to determine whether other parking controls lead to long stay parking here.
(ii) Time limited parking bay outside of the church
20 80. A time limited parking bay could be provided (as shown in Appendix 9), where a maximum three hour stay, for example, would apply. This should operate during the same hours as any controls in The Square car park. It would prevent long stay parking and mainly benefit visitors to the church, which only has off-road parking for disabled drivers.
81. It is only recommended that this should be introduced if there are time limited parking controls introduced in The Square car park.
Financial Implications
82. On 26 October 2006 Cabinet approved funding of £34,000 from the Community Investment Programme to cover the cost of implementing charges in The Square car park. There are no further funds left in this budget; approximately £8,000 has been spent on ticket machines, £5,500 on consultant fees, £1,000 on TRO advertising and £25,500 on staff time. This has resulted in a deficit of £6,000 which is attributed to a greater level of staff time having been involved than originally anticipated.
83. To progress any new parking controls in The Square car park or on the street further funding will be required. Appendix 10 gives further details of the costs and estimated income from parking charges and permits.
84. Income from car park charges will be reduced if permit holders are entitled to park there and also by increasing the initial free parking period. For instance, if the initial 30 minute free parking period is retained as originally proposed but permit holders are also entitled to park, the estimated annual income would be £30,000 compared to £50,000 without permit holders. Estimated income from a one hour free period or a two hour period would drop to £25,000 and £20,000 respectively.
85. The funding of £34,000 previously approved by Cabinet was provided on the basis that there would be an annual income from Pay & Display charges of approximately £50,000. Income is now expected to be less if permit holders are entitled to use the car park, even taking into account the additional income from permit charges (estimated at £8,000, depending on the option chosen for resident and business permits). Growth for loss of income will therefore need to be taken into account, although the exact figure varies according to the free period in the car park (see Appendix 10, item (iii)). Additional ongoing revenue growth of £4,500 per annum also needs to be taken into account in providing a residents parking scheme (Appendix 10, item (iv)).
86. To implement a TRO for all these parking controls together will cost approximately £43,000, which includes the current budget deficit of £6,000. This can be funded under an ‘invest to save’ scheme through the Community Investment Programme, which would see repayment start in 2010/11. A breakdown of the cost of the various parking controls proposed is listed in Appendix 10, item (i).
87. In respect of parking on The Green, initial legal work would cost approximately £5,000. This could be funded from the Local Area Committee’s unallocated
21 reserves. The procedure to regularise parking on The Green is likely to require further funding, depending on the conclusion of the preliminary work.
Risk Management
88. The likely outcome of not doing anything is that there will be difficulties for visitors to the village in finding somewhere to park. Damage may also be caused to those parts of The Square car park that have not been constructed for vehicle use, through regular indiscriminate parking.
89. If parking controls are introduced in The Square car park the risk is that it will lead to new parking problems in surrounding streets, although much of this could be overcome through a residents parking scheme and controls to prevent obstructions at junctions and on corners.
Conclusion
90. There are a variety of options that can be pursued in relation to The Square car park and residents parking schemes. The car park is a valuable resource for the village but continuing to allow any vehicle to use it for long stay parking does not make the best use of it. Short stay parking would allow a greater turnaround of use of the spaces, and allowing all-day parking with charges would also help to achieve this. Parking can be controlled to varying extents, which may have knock-on effects in surrounding roads, although these can be addressed.
91. Any proposals to introduce parking controls will require a TRO, so there will be a further opportunity for the public to put forward their views if this happens. The Council’s website will be kept updated.
92. Improved signing to parking areas, on-street parking controls and changes to The Square car park will affect parking behaviour in the village. The effects of this should be monitored before further work is carried out into a potential new long stay parking facility, given that considerable expense would be incurred before it is even established whether such a parking area can be provided. In the meantime, formalised long term parking provision of over 100 spaces can be provided on street at the same time as other measures are introduced, thus going some way to meeting public concern over the effect of new controls in the village centre.
DUNCAN MCVEY Head of Transportation & Engineering
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 14 November 2007 Contact Officer: Paul Garrod
22 Tel No: 023 8068 8232 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 10 No. Report No EN1061
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
RTA Associates, A Parking Strategy for Hamble-le-Rice Village, September 2006
23 This page is intentionally left blank
24 25 This page is intentionally left blank
26 27 This page is intentionally left blank
28 29 This page is intentionally left blank
30 APPENDIX 4
HAMBLE PARKING EXHIBITION
COMMENT FORM
Thank you for visiting the exhibition. Please complete and return this form to the location marked in the hall.
Name
Address
1. Are you a: local resident local business river user visitor
(tick all boxes that apply to you)
2. Which option do you prefer for providing a residents parking scheme? (tick one box only) Option 1 (parking bays in Satchell Lane & Hamble House Gardens) Option 2 (allow permit holders to use The Square car park) Option 3 (allow permit holders to use The Square car park and Pay & Display parking bays in Satchell Lane)
3. Do you think local businesses should get permits to allow them to use the parking areas for any length of time between 8am and 8pm?
Yes No (tick one box only)
4. If you answered ‘yes’ above, which parking areas should business permit holders be able to use? (tick any number of boxes) The Square car park The Foreshore car park Parking bays in Satchell Lane Parking bays in Hamble House Gardens
31 APPENDIX 4
5. If new parking facilities could be provided for long stay parking, which of the following sites do you believe is most appropriate? (tick one box only)
Donkey Derby Field (no. 10 on plan) Copse Lane, private parking area (no. 16 on plan) Land south of Donkey Derby Field (no. 13b on plan)
6. If you have any other comments to make about the proposals for parking in the village, please use the space below.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
32 APPENDIX 5 – SUMMARY OF RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC EXHIBITION
Question Responses Comment (%)
Residents parking scheme: Option 1: permit bays in Satchell Lane & Hamble House Gardens 20 Option 2: use of The Square car park only 18 Option 3: as per Option 2 plus use of Pay & Display bays in Satchell Lane 47 Don’t agree with any option OR no option selected 15
Should businesses get permits? Yes 67 No 32 No answer 1
If businesses should get permits, where should they park? The Square car park 67 The Foreshore car park 72 Respondents could choose one or Satchell Lane parking bays 40 more location Hamble House Gardens parking bays 36
Preferred potential long stay parking area: Donkey Derby Field 42 Copse Lane 20 School Lane (north of pumping station) 25 Don’t agree with any site OR no area selected 13
Note: percentage responses based on total of 177 comment forms received from public exhibition on 10 October 2007 33 This page is intentionally left blank
34 35 This page is intentionally left blank
36 37 This page is intentionally left blank
38 39 This page is intentionally left blank
40 41 This page is intentionally left blank
42 APPENDIX 10: FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
(i) Estimated implementation costs
The Square car park – limited waiting and/or Pay & Display Parking Signing 2,500 Staff time for TRO process 5,000 TRO adverts 1,000 8,500
Satchell Lane – limited waiting (permit holder exemption) Signing & road markings 1,500 Staff time for TRO process 1,000 (if undertaken at same time as The Square) TRO adverts 1,000 3,500
Hamble House Gardens & Meadow Lane area permit scheme Signing & road markings 6,000 Leaflets, printing, postage 1,000 Staff time for TRO process 6,000 (includes limited waiting bay in High Street) TRO adverts 1,000 14,000
Copse Lane & Spitfire Way parking bays Signing & road markings 5,000
Improvements to village parking signs 6,000
Overspend of existing budget 6,000
Total £43,000
(ii) Estimated annual income
The Square car park – Pay & Display Parking
The previously estimated annual income from Pay & Display parking, as reported to Cabinet, was £49,660 based on the recommended charges and operating times, including a free 30 minute period. If resident and business permit holders are entitled to use this car park it will reduce the level of income. It should be assumed that at any one time between 20 and 30 spaces could be taken up by vehicles with a permit. The level of income will also vary according to the initial free period. Annual income is therefore estimated as follows:
30 minute free parking £30,000 income 1 hour free parking £25,000 income 2 hours free parking £20,000 income
Permit parking scheme
If residents and businesses are entitled to two permits per property (including the Meadow Lane area), it is anticipated that around 120 permits would be issued to residents (at a cost
43 of £50 each), and that 20 business permits would be issued (at a cost of £100 each), providing an annual income of £8,000.
(iii) Growth for loss of income
The 2008/09 budget includes an income budget of £49,660 for The Square car park. The loss of expected income therefore needs to be taken into account by Cabinet. The figure will vary according to the initial free parking period chosen because of the effect on estimated income, as noted above:
30 minute free parking £11,660 growth for loss of income 1 hour free parking £16,660 growth for loss of income 2 hours free parking £21,660 growth for loss of income
(iv) Estimated annual revenue costs
Parking permit printing/postage 1,500 Issue of permits at parish offices 3,000
Total £4,500
These ongoing costs are based on introducing a residents’ parking scheme. Revenue costs for Pay & Display parking in The Square have already been taken into account.
44 1
BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE AND HOUND LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 27 November 2007 (6:00 pm – 9:00 pm)
PRESENT:
Councillor Airey (Chairman); Councillors Cross, Holes, McNulty, Millar and Pepper
Also in attendance: Councillor House
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Craig
______
RESOLVED ITEMS (SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS ONLY)
1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members were invited to declare interests in relation to items of business on the agenda. Any interests declared are recorded in the relevant minute below.
2. PARKING CONTROLS IN HAMBLE VILLAGE
Consideration was given to a report by the Head of Transportation and Engineering written following a study into parking in the village of Hamble- le-Rice. Proposals were put forward for on and off-street parking controls. The views received were discussed and various options on how parking could be managed were dealt with in the report.
RESOLVED –
(1) That with regard to the Square Car Park, the following be endorsed for further consideration by Cabinet: (i) Charging in The Square car park between 8am and 8pm, seven days a week, at 50p per hour; (ii) Limiting the length of stay in the car park to four hours; (iii) The duration of the initial free period should be one hour; (iv) Exempting resident and business permit holders (if permits are issued) from hourly charges.
(2) That a Traffic Regulation Order should be implemented (subject to the outcome of public advertisement) for a
45 2
resident and business permit parking scheme and other on-street parking controls as follows:
(i) All residential and business properties within the boundary shown in Drawing no. E/TM/01/M/22/012 (Appendix 8 of the agenda) to be entitled to a maximum of two permits, which would be valid in The Square car park or any adjacent on-street designated permit parking area (The boundary area to be extended to include Sydney Cottages, Riverbank, 1-3 Rostellan Cottages School Lane, and to exclude Rope Walk); (ii) Residential properties within the boundary to be entitled to 75 days of visitor permits per year, increasing by 25 per adult if more than one adult resides at the property, visitor permits would only be valid in on-street designated permit parking areas; (iii) Any new developments within the boundary granted planning approval after the Traffic Regulation Order has come into effect will not be entitled to permits; (iv) Any on-street parking controls to operate during the same times as parking controls in The Square car park (with the exception of ‘no waiting’ (yellow line) restrictions); (v) Meadow Lane, The Bartletts and Farm Close to be designated as a ‘permit parking zone’ (Appendix 9 of the agenda). (vi) A parking bay to be provided on the western side of Hamble House Gardens for free long term parking, but with some provision for residents permit parking, the remaining sections of the road to be controlled by a ‘no waiting at any time’ (double yellow line) restriction (Appendix 9 of the agenda); (vii) Three hour time limited parking directly outside of St Andrew’s Church in High Street (Appendix 9 of the agenda); (viii) Two hour time limited parking on the eastern side of Satchell Lane (between Marina Drive and 20 Satchell Lane) permit holders to be exempt from the time limit if permits are issued (Appendix 7 of the agenda);
46 3
(ix) Two hour time limited parking in the layby on the western side of Satchell Lane, adjacent to the car park (Appendix 7 of the agenda); (x) 30 minute time limited parking in The Quay, to serve as a drop-off area for river users (Appendix 6 of the agenda); (xi) Investigate the possibility of providing two parking spaces for life boat crews.
(3) That with regard to permit charges, the following be endorsed for further consideration by Cabinet:
(i) Resident permits £50 per annum each. (ii) Business permits £100 per annum each;
(4) That officers be authorised to discuss the parking arrangements in the village with Hamble Parish Council, particularly relating to the use of permits in the Foreshore car park; (5) That a review of direction signing be undertaken for all parking areas in the village, including the longer term parking in marked bays in Hamble House Gardens, Copse Lane and Spitfire Way, the BP car park and the common car park adjacent to the pumping station; (6) That officers be instructed to negotiate with BP regarding the potential use of their land off Copse Lane for longer term public parking provision; (7) That funding of £5,000 be approved from its unallocated reserves to enable further legal investigation to take place to formalise a reduced area of parking to that which already takes place on part of the Village Green; (8) That the parking situation in the village be monitored following the implementation of new parking controls in The Square and on-street; (9) An additional long stay parking facility is justified and should be pursued as a matter of urgency, the availability of Areas B & C and the Airfield and railway line be investigated and a report be brought to the Local Area Committee meeting to be held on 1 February; and (10) A review of the proposals for parking, as agreed, be undertaken within 12 months of implementation of each phase, to assess where improvements or changes can be made which would benefit residents and businesses.
(NOTE: Sixteen members of the public spoke with regard to this report)
47 4
______
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Declarations of interest were made as follows:
None
M3669
48 Agenda Item 5
BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE AND HOUND LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE 4December 2007 CABINET
10 December 2007 CONSULTATION BY HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ON THE HAMPSHIRE MINERALS PLAN Reportofthe Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy
RECOMMENDATION
Bursledon, Hamble-Le-Rice and Hound Local AreaCommittee. It is recommendedthatthe Local AreaCommittee endorse comments set out in bold in this report and paragraphs 15 –21,27-28and 31inthe report and recommend to Cabinet accordingly.
Cabinet. It is recommendedthat, subject to the views of the Bursledon, Hamble-Le-Rice and Hound Local AreaCommittee, the comments set out in bold in this report and the conclusions of paragraphs 15 –21, 27-28 and 31formthe Council’sresponse to the consultation by Hampshire County Council on the Hampshire Minerals Plan.
Summary
Hampshire County Council’s Minerals Plan identifies four sites within Eastleigh Borough for various mineral related uses. This is the formal consultation stage that will inform the submission document which is intended to be submitted to Government in October 2008. This report identifies these sites and recommends that the conclusions of this report form the Borough Council’s formal response to the County Council.
Statutory Powers
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders1\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
49 Introduction
1. The Council has been consulted by Hampshire County Council on their Minerals Plan, Regulation 26 Consultation Document. The documents received are:
Hampshire Minerals Plan, Regulation 26 Consultation, Development Plan Document, October 2007
Hampshire Minerals Plan Sustainability Appraisal Report, October 2007
Hampshire Minerals Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment, Final Report, October 2007
Hampshire Minerals Plan Joint Baseline Report, October 2007.
2. The Plan states that the purpose of this consultation is to refine both the approach and proposals for future minerals development in Hampshire. The consultation period is between 31 October and 12 December 2007. There is an invitation only stakeholder workshop on 19 November 2007 and it should be noted that this is a Hampshire County Council plan and therefore any public consultation is their responsibility.
3. This Plan is part of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (HMWDF) which also includes:
• Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy–adopted July 2007 • Hampshire Waste Management Plan – being prepared • Proposals Map – being prepared.
The HMWDF will supersede the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (1998) and will cover the period to 2020. The final version of this Plan will be drafted after this period of consultation and is intended to be submitted to Government in October 2008. It is intended to be adopted in November 2009. The Plan will be reviewed within five years of its adoption; the extent of this review will be determined by the findings of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) and by further review of the South east plan.
4. The need to identify sites for various minerals activities throughout Hampshire must be recognised. This report sets out the key issues for the Council in respect of each site, identified in consultation with the heads of various units including Countryside, Transportation and Engineering and Environmental Health.
5. The Council has previously commented on the Issues and Option stage of this Plan which was considered by Cabinet on 26 October 2006 and on the Issues and Options Addendum Paper which was considered by Cabinet on 14 June 2007. Details of the response to Hampshire County Council on each consultation are in appendix 5.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders2\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
50 Main Planning Issues
5. The adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy sets out the spatial vision for the overall HWMDF and splits Hampshire into four geographic areas. Eastleigh is within the South Hampshire area. Elements of the Core Strategy which need to be delivered through this Plan are outlined in appendix 4.
The principal requirements of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy are:
• An apportionment of 2.63 million tonnes per annum of land-wonsandand gravel to be supplied. 2.63 x 10 years = 26.3 million tonnes • An apportionment of 1.7 million tonnes per annum of recycled and secondary aggregate to be supplied. 1.7 x 10 years = 17 million tonnes. • Maintenance of a 7 year land bank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel.
These requirements have been adopted by the County Council within the Core Strategy but the sub-regional land-won sand and gravel apportionment is under review and will be submitted as an amendment to the South East Plan. It is hoped that this will be approved in late 2009.
6. Within the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) the following paragraphs set out the planning criteria for Minerals and Waste Disposal:
“1.31 Hampshire County Council is responsible for minerals and waste disposal and the Hampshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted December 1998) provides more detailed guidance. (This is currently being replaced by the Minerals and Waste Development Framework.)
1.32.TheBorough Council is consulted by the County Council on proposals for mineral extraction and waste disposal and will take into account the policies of this plan in formulating its views. The Borough Council will in particular take into consideration:
i. The impact of the proposal on the local transport network; ii. The impact of the proposal on the countryside, sites of nature conservation value, woodland, best and most versatile agricultural land, the historic environment and other interests of acknowledged importance; iii. The effect of the proposal on adjoining land uses; iv. The need to secure the highest standard of restoration, which includes measures to maximise the nature conservation potential of the site; v. The impact of the proposal on the quality of life of local residents; and
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders3\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
51 vi. The need to ensure an appropriate after-use for agriculture, nature conservation or amenity, which takes into account the quality of the restored land.” 7. Proposals in the Minerals Plan must be assessed by the Borough Council against these criteria. The Table in appendix 2 outlines the issues raised in relation to the criteria and the proposed sites.
Sitesidentifiedby the County Council
8. In relation to mineral resources there are three broad areas identified by Hampshire County Council. These are the Minerals Resource Area, Minerals Safeguarding Area and Minerals Consultation Area. Each of these Areas cover significant sections of the Borough, shown on maps within the Plan.
9. Mineral Resource Area (MRA)
The MRA defines broad locations where the minerals authority would prefer future land-won sand and gravel extraction to take place. It only identifies areas where land-won sand and gravel extraction will principally occur and does not provide a total exclusion from development even within the buffer zones which are set around internationally designated sites for biodiversity. (These buffer zones are not identified on the proposals maps.) The Minerals Plan sets out sites for sand and gravel extraction up to 2016 the MRA is then seen to be used as a starting point for strategic reserve sites from 2017-2020. Some areas of clay are identified on the MRA map within the Borough.
10. Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA)
The MSA protects essential minerals infrastructure valuable minerals resources from sterilisation by development. It defines areas for safeguarding and includes the Minerals Consultation Area (MCA) set out below. The County Council will require the MSA to be identified within Local Development Documents (LDD), to avoid needless sterilisation by development. There is no presumption that resources defined in MSAs will be worked and does not include urban areas.
11. Mineral Consultation Area (MCA)
The Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy has provisionally safeguarded all existing permitted or operational minerals facilities pending review through the plan making process. The Core Strategy sets out consultation distances of 250m around existing and planned quarries and landfills and 50m around other minerals sites and these are now defined as MCAs. Local authorities should take MCAs into account when developing policies and proposals within their LDF.
Comment: The differencesbetweenthese areas are not clear and should be clarifiedasthe three separate areas could be combined onto one map outlining what areas require consultation and what areas are
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders4\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
52 safeguarded. This would help Development Control colleaguesand avoid unnecessary confusion.
Comment: Development has recently commencedonthe South Street site, Eastleigh. This areaisdefinedwithinthe Minerals Plan as being within a Mineral Consultation Area, Mineral Safeguarding Areaand Mineral Resource Area. As the site is committedtodevelopment, the County Council should be askedtodelete this site from these areas.
12. Landfill Potential Area (LPoA)
The LPoA shows broad locations where the minerals authority would prefer future non-hazardous landfill to take place following mineral extraction. Non- hazardous landfill in this context includes municipal, industrial and commercial waste. Neither of the minerals extraction sites proposed in Eastleigh borough are identified for this type of landfill.
Main issuesforeach of the proposedsites
13. Four preferred areas or sites within the Borough have been specifically identified within the Minerals Plan. These include 2 existing sites and 2 new allocations. Maps of these sites are in appendix 1. The alternative sites are not located within the Borough. The Plan does discuss eliminated locations in appendix 4.
Comment: It is unclear how and why the preferredsitesandalternatives have beenchosen. this should be clearly demonstrated.
14. Sand and Gravel
South Hampshire is expected to supply 370,000 tonnes in 2010 and 510,000 tonnes per annum in 2011 through to 2016. Between 2011 and 2016 the preferred areas identified are capable of supplying at a rate which exceeds the local apportionment.
In the early period of the plan there is a shortfall against the new requirement 2.63 million tonnes per annum however this is largely due to the shortness of the landbank in this area and the lag-time before new proposals start operation. This deemed as acceptable to the County Council as the shortfall is within the early period of the plan.
The sites will supply a further 1.01 million tonnes of new production during the period 2017-2020 and this contributes to the overall indicative strategic reserve of 10.52 million tonnes.
Comment: The sitesidentified for sand and gravel extraction within Eastleigh Borough raise a variety of issues including traffic, air quality, noise, residential amenity and biodiversity impacts. These needtobe addressed and satisfactorily overcome in order to avoid detrimental impacts to the surrounding area. There is therefore a holding objection to the inclusion of these sitessubject to further information.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders5\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
53 15. The sites identified within the Borough are discussed below:
Preferredarea for sand and gravel extraction - Pickwell Farm, Old Netley, Southampton (pPA5)
Comment: The Pickwell Farm site (pPA5) is within Eastleigh Borough and the parish of Hound, not in Southampton.
The site is located between Netley Abbey and Old Netley in Hound. It extends to 37.4 hectares and it is envisaged that around 220,000 tonnes of sharp sand and gravel could be extracted per year from 2010 to 2016.
The site is identified within the Local Plan Review 2001-2011 as countryside, strategic gap and adjacent to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The geography/hydrology of this site should be investigated to ensure there are no significant cost implications and no environmental impacts.
The proposals would mean increased traffic generation, potentially significant impact on nearby residential areas, air quality impacts and noise and would result in a local visual impact. Any site proposals would need to be assessed against the criteria within the Local Plan Review 2001-2011. The potential impacts of these proposals against the local Plan Review criteria is outlined in appendix 3.
Comment: Within the Sustainability Appraisal transport impacts are deemed as minor negative impacts due to the close proximity to the Minerals and Waste Lorry route, this is not define within the plan and should be shownonamap.
Within the Sustainability Appraisal air quality should also be highlighted as a potential issue for the Pickwell Farm (pPA5) site due to its proximity to the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) on Hamble Lane and Portsmouth Road.
The use of rail should be investigated for this site including the economic viability of this.
This site is designated as grade 1 agricultural land classification.
Comment: Theextraction of sand and gravelfromthissite raises significant issuesthatare not satisfactorily addressedinthe Plan. The main issuesforthissite include traffic, air quality, noise and residential amenity. These needtobe addressed and satisfactorily overcome in order to avoid detrimental impacts to the surrounding area. There is therefore an objection to the inclusion of this site.
16. Preferredarea for sand and gravel extraction - Hamble Airfield, Hamble (pPA6)
The site is 62 hectares and it is envisaged that around 150,000 tonnes of sharp sand and gravel could be extracted per year from 2010 to 2019.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders6\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
54 The Minerals Plan describes Hamble Airfield as being promoted for development. Hamble Airfield is, of course, not being promoted by the Borough Council for development. The site however, is owned by a development company who have owned the site for over 20 years and wish to promote the site for housing.
This majority of this site is designated as non-agricultural with a small section to the north designated as grade 1 agricultural land classification. The geography/hydrology of this site should be investigated to ensure there are no significant cost implications and no environmental impacts.
Comment: Eastleigh Borough Council is not promoting this site for development, the Local Plan Review 2001-2011 identifiesthissite as Countryside, partly within a Local Gap,existing openspace/allotments and it is a site for proposed landscape improvements. There is a footpath along the boundary of the site but none within the site itself, this should be amendedwithinthe supporting text to figure 53.
The proposals would result in increased traffic generation, impact on nearby residential areas, air quality impacts and noise and would result in a local visual impact. Any site proposals would need to be assessed against the criteria within the Local Plan Review 2001-2011 this is outlined in appendix 3.
The use of rail should be investigated for this site including the economic viability of this.
17. Within the Sustainability Appraisal Report air quality should be highlighted as a potential issue for the Hamble Airfield (pPA6) site due to its proximity to the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) on Hamble Lane and Portsmouth Road. It should be noted that transport impacts should be highlighted as a potential issue even though within this report they are deemed as minor negative impacts due to the close proximity to the Minerals and Waste Lorry route.
The Hamble Airfield site (pPA6) has been assessed within the Appropriate Assessment due to its proximity to the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar. It was highlighted within the HRA report that there are likely significant effects from transport and transporting minerals by road and within the mitigation recommendations more information was needed. The HRA report showed that there were uncertain significant effects of physical damage to the habitat and hydrological impacts and biological impacts; this would depend on the after uses of the site. Paragraph 19 will address the HRA issues separately.
Comment: Theextraction of sand and gravelfromthissite raises significant issuesthatare not satisfactorily addressedinthe Plan. There are avariety of issuesforthissite which include traffic, air quality, noise, residential amenity and biodiversity impacts. These needtobe addressed and satisfactorily overcome in order to avoid detrimental
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders7\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
55 impacts to the surrounding area. There is therefore an objectiontothe inclusion of this site.
18. Transportation and Engineering comments for the Hamble peninsula sites
Whilst it is recognised that minerals need to be extracted from the available sources, the preferred sites still need careful consideration to avoid undesirable and damaging traffic impact. This aspect of site allocation is recognised within the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. However, there appears to be no evidence which covers the impact of the above sites and supports their inclusion, or indeed any other sites contained within the Plan. Comment : Preliminary transport assessments should have been carried out and be available as part of the identification of the preferredsites, ratherthe impact being consideredmuchlateraspartofthe planning application process, as promotedby the consultation document.
19. The main transport related issues concerning the allocation of the two Hamble Lane sites are:
• Hamble Lane is a class 2 road for most of its length and not part of the strategic road network • Hamble Lane carries a large flow of approximately 30,000 vehicles per day. • It is already suffers major traffic congestion a peak, and other, times. • It is subjecttoanAirQuality Management Area.
The proposed use of these sites would undoubtedly generate additional HGV movements in a corridor which is unable to accommodate additional traffic. HGV traffic is one of the main contributors to poor air quality so this additional traffic would aggravate the already poor situation.
Comment: The additional traffic, although potentially outside the main traffic peaks, would be likely to worsencongestion resultinginroad safety implications and measures would be needed to mitigate the impact. These should have beenidentifiedaspartofthe site selection process, be identifiedatanearly stage and put in place before the sites are operational.
20. Comment: The Fareham to Southampton railway line runs close to the Hamble Airfield site and it may be possible to construct sidings so that a good proportion of theextractedminerals are distributedby rail, reducing the need for road basedtraffic.
21. Alternative options:
Daedalus Airfield, Lee on Solent, Gosport/Fareham (pAPA3) could be put forward as an additional preferred site or as an alternative to the sites listed. Part of the site has been bought for redevelopment and extraction as part of the redevelopment is possible. Officers within Fareham have stated that ‘there are concerns at the delay that prior extraction would cause and the lack of information concerning timescales, backfill and restoration of the land to
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders8\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
56 enable redevelopment. It is therefore considered that the proposal should not be supported at this time’
Brownwich and Chilling Farms, Warsash, Fareham (pAPA4) are owned by Hampshire County Council and are underlain by sand and gravel. It is high quality agricultural land however it could be extracted and restored either to agriculture or wetland habitat with public access. This wetland habitat could compensate for the loss of wetland to development elsewhere in Hampshire. Officers within Fareham have stated that ‘whilst the potential for extraction and infilling is recognised there remains some significant constraint issues that need to be addressed before the proposal can be supported.’
Eastleigh Borough Council officers share these views.
Comment: There is not enough information on these alternative sitesto make an informeddecision on their status in relation to the siteswithin Eastleigh.
Appendix 1 and 2 to this report includes maps of these sites and data showing the sand and gravel apportionment for South Hampshire and the total for Hampshire.
22. Recycled and secondary aggregates
Within Eastleigh there is an existing strategic aggregate recycling facility, Eastleigh rail sidings (EXF1) which the Hampshire minerals plan preferred options seek to retain. The Plan highlights the need to improve the quality and quantity of recycled aggregates to promote greater confidence in the product.
Comment: A commitment to the retention of this site for aggregates recycling would pre-empt furtherdebate and limit options for this area’ The long-term use of the Eastleigh Rail Sidings site (EXF1) should be determinedaspartofthe South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone (SHSEZ)Area Action Plan (AAP). The overall objective of the Borough Council is to maximiseemployment value. Hampshire County Council should be requested to consider option for relocation of this aggregate recycling facility within the SHSEZ area.
23. In the Sustainability Appraisal Report transport has been highlighted as an issue for the Eastleigh Rail sidings site (EXF1). Vehicular access is a general issue for the site.
Comment: Air quality, dust and noise should also be highlightedasa potential issue for the Eastleigh Rail sidings due to its proximity to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) on Southampton Road.
The Eastleigh Rail Sidings site (EXF1) has been subject to an Appropriate Assessment due to its proximity to the River Itchen. It was highlighted that there are likely significant effects from transport and transporting minerals by road. There were uncertain significant effects of physical damage to the
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders9\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
57 habitat and hydrological impacts. Paragraph 19 of this report will address the HRA issues separately.
24. Rail aggregate depots
Existing operational rail depots are to be safeguarded at Eastleigh Rail Depot (EXH2) and Botley Rail Aggregates Depot (EXH1). The Botley site is located outside the Borough. The Eastleigh Rail Depot is used by the rail industry
Comment: A commitment to the retention of this site for a Rail Depot would pre-empt furtherdebate and limit options for this area’ The long- term use of the Eastleigh Rail Sidings site (EXH2) should be determined as part of the South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone (SHSEZ) Area Action Plan (AAP). The overall objective of the Borough Council is to maximiseemployment value. Hampshire County Council should be requestedtoconsider option for relocation of this Rail Depot within the SHSEZ area.
Comment: Figure 16 in the plan should be clearly annotatedto distinguish betweenthe two sites, EXF1 and EXH2 the Eastleigh Rail Depot.
The Eastleigh Aggregate Rail Depot has not been assessed within the Sustainability Appraisal due to it being operational.
25. Other minerals
Chalk – no preferred chalk extraction sites are identified within the Borough.
Clay–no preferred sites within Eastleigh are identified.
Oil and Gas – this requirement is met from existing operational sites outside the Borough .
Comment: There have beenrecent oil and gas exploration proposals within the Borough. The Plan should provide guidance on how to deal with such proposals.
Sustainability Appraisal
26. Comment: The plans, policies and programmessection of the baseline report doesnotinclude district local plans. Howeverthese are referred to in the main document and should therefore be included.
Comment: Within the summary of significant effects on pages106-113 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report none of the siteshave been identifiedwithinthe Biodiversity sections even though this is clearly identifiedasanissue within the Sustainability Appraisal matrices. This should be addressed.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders10\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
58 It is felt by the County Council that the effects of the Plan are mainly long term however there are some short and medium term effects for example construction and operation e.g. noise, transport .
Habitats Regulations Assessment
27. Comment: Within the In-combination section of the Habitats Regulations Assessment, the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and emerging Local Development Framework has not beenincluded; they should be taken into account. In Appendix 5 of the HRA report, Eastleigh Borough Council is not includedwithinthe‘Local authorities which site falls within’ section for the RiverItchenSAC. Solent Martime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar, this should be addressed.
Comment: It is unclear what mitigation measureshave beenincludedin order to mitigate the likely significant effects for all the sites and issues identified above, these should be clearly shown.
Financial Implications
28. There are no financial implications for the Council of the Plan or of this report at this stage.
Risk Management
29. If the recommendations are not complied with the County Council may proceed with the designations on the identified sites as discussed within this report. This may result in unfavourable development, with the Council having a reduced influence on the proposals.
Conclusion
30.The need for minerals for the Borough and the rest of Hampshire must be recognised by the Council but I am concerned by the lack of justification for the selection of the preferred sites referred to in this report and that the impacts of the proposals within the Borough have not been properly addressed. It is suggested that at this stage the County Council is advised of the Borough Council’s concerns set out in bold and in paragraphs 15-21, 27- 28 and 31 above and that the attention of the County Council is drawn to the issues raised in respect of each site and set out in appendix 4 to the report.
The consultation paper set out a series of questions; the questions most relevant to the Borough are located in appendix 6. The Borough Council’s response to the County Council on the Minerals Plan will not answer each question individually but cover the key issues for the specific sites within the Borough.
PAULRAMSHAW
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders11\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
59 Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 26th November 2007 Contact Officer: Gemma Christian Tel No: 023 8068 8243 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 6 Report No PP000028
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
The Hampshire Minerals Plan, Regulation 26 consultation, can be found here:
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/planning/mineralsandwaste/planning-policy/development- framework/sites-plans/regulation_26/minerals-plan.htm
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders12\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
60 Appendix 1
Maps and descriptions of the proposed sites as provided by Hampshire County Council
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders13\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
61 EXF1 –Eastleigh Rail Sidings
EXH2 –Eastleigh Rail Depot
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders14\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
62 PreferredSite:Pickwell Farm, Old Netley, Southampton (pPA5)
Location: The site is located between Netley and Old Netley in Hound
Proposal: Extraction of approximately 1.3 million tonnes of sharp sand and gravel.
Area: 37.4 hectares
The proposed preferred area was previously proposed for allocation under the last local plan review. Proposed restoration includes infilling with inert waste and returning the proposed preferred area to its current use of horticulture and grazing. In addition to potential recreation activity, other alternative land use possibilities could include new woodland creation to improve biodiversity.
Issues for consideration:
• Landscape: The area is located within a Strategic Gap and consists of a fairly flat agricultural landform.
• Nature Conservation: Thearealiesadjacent to the Priors Hill Brickworks/Prior Hill Copse Site of Importance for Nature Conservation network, which surrounds the stream and forms part of an important strip of ancient woodland
• Archaeology: The area contains archaeological potential. There is moderate potential that derived Paleolithic material exists.
• Proximity to residential properties: There are residential properties within and adjacent to the boundary of the area.
• Traffic: Consideration will need to be given to impact on Old Netley and traffic congestion particularly linked to the nearby school.
• Recreation: There are footpaths currently crossing the area.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders15\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
63 pPA5 – Pickwell Farm, Old Netley, Southampton
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders16\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
64 ProposedPreferredArea: Hamble Airfield, Hamble (pPA6)
Location: The proposed preferred area is a former airfield located north
of Hamble.
Proposal: Extraction of approximately 2 million tonnes of sand and
gravel.
Area: 62 hectares
The proposed preferred area is being promoted for development and it is proposed that the mineral underlying the proposed preferred area is extracted prior to its development in order to prevent sterilisation.
As a prior extraction proposed preferred area, it would be restored to ground level or some other agreed level above the water table, and developed for residential uses. The proposed preferred area will not be available for landfill of any description. The quarry operator could be asked to contribute some leisure / recreation use or feature for the benefit of the community.
Issues for consideration:
• Landscape: The area is located within a Local Gap and consists of a fairly flat landform.
• Nature Conservation: The area lies within 350m of Solent and Southampton Special Protection Area, Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation and Lee on Solent to Itchen ValleyEstuary Site of Special Scientific Interest.
• Archaeology: Features of airfield defence are still located on the area and further assessment of their importance should be considered. There is moderate potential that derived Paleolithic material exists.
• Proximity to residential properties: There are residential properties adjacent to the boundary of the area to the southwest, south and southeast.
• Airport Safety: The area is located within an airport safety exclusion zone.
• Traffic: Consideration will need to be given to impact on Old Netley and traffic congestion particularly linked to the nearby school.
• Recreation: There are footpaths currently crossing the area.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders17\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
65 pPA6 – Hamble Airfield, Hamble
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders18\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
66 Appendix 2
Tables and Charts illustrating meeting sand and gravel apportionment in South Hampshire and the Hampshire total.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders19\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
67 South Hampshire Shortfall / Contribution Forest Contribution Excess Pickwell Hamble from Year Lodge from new Total (compared Farm Airfield existing Farm proposals with the local sites apportionment
2007 0 0 0 0 140,000 140,000 -251,000
2008 0 0 0 0 140,000 140,000 -251,000
2009 0 0 0 0 140,000 140,000 -251,000
2010 220,000 150,000 0 370,000 0 370,000 -21,000
2011 220,000 150,000 140,000 510,000 0 510,000 119,000
2012 220,000 150,000 140,000 510,000 0 510,000 119,000
2013 220,000 150,000 140,000 510,000 0 510,000 119,000
2014 220,000 150,000 140,000 510,000 0 510,000 119,000
2015 220,000 150,000 140,000 510,000 0 510,000 119,000
2016 220,000 150,000 140,000 510,000 0 510,000 119,000
2017 0 150,000 140,000 290,000 0 290,000 -101,000
2018 0 150,000 140,000 290,000 0 290,000 -101,000
2019 0 150,000 140,000 290,000 0 290,000 -101,000
2020 0 0 140,000 140,000 0 140,000 -251,000
Sub- total 1,540,000 1,050,000 840,000 3,430,000 420,000 3,850,000 -60,000 to 2016
Sub- total 0 450,000 560,000 1,010,000 0 1,010,000 -554,000 2017- 2020
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders20\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
68 Total to 1,540,000 1,500,000 1,400,000 4,440,000 420,000 4,860,000 -614,000 2020
Table 10 Illustrative provision - South Hampshire
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders21\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
69 Appendix 3
Table detailing the Planning policies and criteria which apply to the proposed sites.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders22\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
70 Site Assessment against the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review(2001-2011).
Site Current Policies Assessment Criteria in Local Plan Review.
Transport Countryside Land uses
Pickwell Farm, Countryside Access to the site Agricultural land quality of There are residential should be restricted the site needs to be properties within and Old Netley Strategic Gap by routeing established. The proposed adjacent to the site. Noise (pPA5) agreement. restoration measures also and air quality are need to be outlined. potential issues. Also Proposed There are TPOs adjacent potential contamination sand and to the site. A stream runs issues. The site is gravel along the eastern adjacent to a SINC. The extraction boundary of the site site is close to a long therefore there are established minerals and potential drainage issues. waste site. Significant landscape impact
Land at Countryside There are potential Agricultural land quality of There are residential Hamble access issues as the site needs to be properties adjacent to the (pPA6) Local Gap Hamble Lane has established. The proposed site. Noise and air quality congestion issues restoration measures also are potential issues. Also Proposed Proposed Landscape however a rail link need to be outlined. There potential contamination sand and are TPOs on the edge of
71 u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals23 and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc 72
gravel Improvements adjoins the site. the site. issues. extraction Dual cycle /pedestrian There is potential link and proposed rail access via the bridleway on boundary oil terminal branch of site.
Eastleigh Rail Airport Public Safety Current rail access Within the urban edge Area designated for Sidings Zone economic regeneration (EXF1) Within Urban Edge Retention of existing strategic aggregate recycling facility
Eastleigh Airport Public Safety Current rail access Within the urban edge Area designated for Aggregates Zone economic regeneration Depot (EXH2) Existing Employment Retention of site existing Rail Depot Within Urban Edge
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals24 and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc Site Assessment Criteria in Local Plan Review
Nature Local impact After use
Pickwell Farm, Conditions need to be There are residential properties Restpration to agriculture or woodland put in place to ensure on and around the site therefore would accord with current plans Old Netley the proposed use is conditions need to be put in (pPA5) restored so that will place to ensure the proposed use maximizethenature does not have a detrimental conservation of the site. impact. Issues such as noise and Potential contamination air quality and the routeing of and drainage issues are traffic. important. The site is adjacent to a SINC ThereisanAirQuality Management Area (AQMA) on Hamble Lane and Portsmouth Road which would be impacted by vehicle movements and the proposed operations on the site.
Land at Hamble Conditions need to be There are residential properties Residential development is proposed (pPA6) put in place to ensure around the site therefore this is covered in paragraph 16 of the the proposed use is conditions need to be put in main report. restored so that will place to ensure the proposed use maximizethenature does not have a detrimental conservation of the site. impact. Issues such as noise and Contamination and air quality and the routing of drainage are important
73 u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals25 and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc 74
issues. The site is of traffic. potentially high ecological value.
Eastleigh Rail Near to River Itchen There are residential properties This is an existing and ongoing use. Sidings (EXF1) SAC. Potential on and around the site therefore contamination and conditions need to be put in drainage issues place to ensure the proposed use does not have a detrimental impact. Issues such as noise and air quality and the routing of traffic.
Air quality issues Southampton Road is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).
Potential adverse impact on development of employment site.
Eastleigh Near to River Itchen There are residential properties This is an existing and ongoing use. Aggregates SAC. Potential on and around the site therefore Depot (EXH2) contamination and conditions need to be put in drainage issues place to ensure the proposed use does not have a detrimental impact. Issues such as noise and air quality and the routing of traffic.
Air quality issues Southampton road is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals26 and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc Eastleigh Borough Council
Appendix 4
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core StrategyElements to be delivered through the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics27 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
75 Eastleigh Borough Council
The Core Strategy sets out the spatial vision for the overall HMWDF. However, the following elements of the Vision need to be delivered either wholly or in part through the Hampshire Minerals Plan:
By 2020, Hampshire will have a world class and sustainable material resources system that maximises both the efficient use of primary materials and the reuse and recycling of waste, and minimises the need for disposal.
The manufacture, to high standards suitable for reuse without wastage, of recycled and secondary raw materials will be commonplace throughout Hampshire. The amount of waste going to landfill will be very limited in quantity and biodegradable content.
Hampshire’s apportioned share of the national and regional need for minerals will be met, without avoidable delay or disruption to supply, and with the minimum of environmental damage.
Minerals and waste activities will be scaled and located sensitively, such that they reduce the impact of road transport and meet the present and future needs of communities, businesses and the environment.
These are taken from the Hampshire Minerals Core Strategy.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics28 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
76 Eastleigh Borough Council
Appendix 5
Responses byEastleigh Borough Council to previous Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Consultation Documents
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics29 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
77 Eastleigh Borough Council
CONSULTATION BY HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ON THE HAMPSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK,ISSUESAND OPTIONS, SITE IDENTIFICATION
October 2006
Comments of Eastleigh Borough Council
Set out below is the response of the Borough Council to the sites identified by the County Council through the issues and options stage of their waste and minerals development framework.
1. A variety of issues arise in respect of each of the identified sites:
Transport and access.
Impact on the countryside, sites of nature conservation value, woodland, best and most versatile agricultural land, the historic environment and other interests of acknowledged importance.
Impact on adjoining land uses.
The maximisation of nature conservation potential through the restoration process.
Impact on quality of life of local residents.
Impact of site on achieving an after-use for agriculture, nature conservation or amenity, which takes into account the quality of the restored land.
Timing and potential prejudicetoemergingAreaActionPlan.
2. Sites: ELH 003, ELH 005, ELH 006, ELH 011
The long-term use of these sites in Eastleigh should be determined as part of the SHSEZ Area Action Plan. These sites would be dependent on the Chickenhall Lane Link Road for access. The use for waste handling and processing may be appropriate for parts of some of these sites, but the overall objective of the Borough Council is to maximise employment value. Formal site allocation could prejudice emerging proposals. The Borough Council will seek to engage with Hampshire County Council closely in further work for these site allocations. The Borough Council raises a holding objection to these proposals
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics30 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
78 Eastleigh Borough Council
3. Sites: ELH 001, ELH007, ELH 008 The Borough Council’s Local Plan Review identifies the need to protect the open countryside in the Hamble peninsula from development. Various issues arise in relation to the extraction of sand and gravel such as traffic and the impact on adjoining residential uses. The Borough Council therefore wishes to raise an objection in principle to these sites.
The County Council should clarify whyBerry Farm, north of site ELH 007 is not included in the Site boundary of this site.
4. Site ELH 009
This site at West End has the potential to act as a replacement housing waste recycling centre (HWRC) site for the existing HWRC in Shamblehurst Lane, Hedge End, subject to satisfactory screening. The site may also have potential for other waste treatment purposes, such as a biowaste processing facility. The site is in an area of woodland locatedwithintheCountryside and a Strategic Gap and may have ecological constraints (habitats and species) survey work is needed to establish opportunities within the site. The site is accessible to nearby main roads and is in a noisy location. The Council supports its further consideration.
5. Site ELH 010 The Borough Council recognises that if the Strategic Development Area (SDA) proposal, North/ North East of Hedge End is progressed it will be necessary for waste issues including potentially an additional HWRC to be properly considered. It is considered that the issue should be considered separately as part of the implementation of the South East Plan. The Borough Council has objected to the SDA location given that transportation and infrastructure issues have yet to be resolved, but there is no objection to the need for any SDA to incorporate appropriate provision for waste disposal and recycling
• The County Council should clarify the absence of specific proposals for a replacement HWRC for Eastleigh town, Woodside Avenue. This could be undertaken in conjunction with the AAP for the SHSEZ.
• For accuracy and clarity the following sites should be relabelled by the County Council: ELH 006 –Eastleigh Sewage Treatment Works Site, Eastleigh as Land South of Eastleigh Sewage Treatment Works. u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics31 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
79 Eastleigh Borough Council
ELH 009 –Botley Road Site, Hedge End as
Botley Road Site, West End.
ELH 010 – Hedge End Strategic Development Area as North/ North East of Hedge End Strategic Development Area.
• The County Council needs to supply more detailed information on the proposed uses of the sites.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics32 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
80 Eastleigh Borough Council
CONSULTATION BY HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ON THE HAMPSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK,ISSUESAND OPTIONS, SITE IDENTIFICATION (ADDENDUM)
JUNE 2007
Comments of Eastleigh Borough Council
Set out below is the response of the Borough Council to the sites identified by the County Council through the issues and options (addendum) stage of their waste and minerals development framework.
• Avariety of issues arise in respect of each of the identified sites:
Transport and access.
Impact on the countryside, sites of nature conservation value, woodland, best and most versatile agricultural land, the historic environment and other interests of acknowledged importance.
Impact on adjoining land uses.
The maximisation of nature conservation potential through the restoration process.
Impact on quality of life of local residents.
Impact of site on achieving an after-use for agriculture, nature conservation or amenity, which takes into account the quality of the restored land.
Timing and potential prejudicetoemergingAreaActionPlan.
• Sites: ELH 003, ELH 005, ELH 006
The long-term use of these sites in Eastleigh should be determined as part of the SHSEZ Area Action Plan. These sites would be dependent on the Chickenhall Lane Link Road for access. The use for waste handling and processing may be appropriate for parts of some of these sites, but the overall objective of the Borough Council is to maximise employment value. Formal site allocation could prejudice emerging proposals. The Borough Council will seek to engage with Hampshire County Council closely in further work for these site allocations. The Borough Council raises a holding objection to these proposals u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics33 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
81 Eastleigh Borough Council
• Site ELH 011
ThelongtermuseofthissiteinEastleigh should be determined as part of the SHSEZ Area Action Plan. The use for waste handling and processing may be appropriate for parts of some of the sites, but the overall objective of the Borough Council is to maximise employment value. Formal site allocation could prejudice emerging proposals. There may be potential negative impacts to the airport depending on the chosen use and if it would attract birds into the area. The Borough Council will seek to engage with Hampshire County Council closely in further work for this site allocation. The Borough Council raises a holding objection to the proposals for this site.
• Sites: ELH 001, ELH007, ELH 008 The Borough Council’s Local Plan Review identifies the need to protect the open countryside in the Hamble peninsula from development. Various issues arise in relation to the extraction of sand and gravel such as traffic and the impact on adjoining residential uses. The Borough Council therefore wishes to raise an objection in principle to these sites.
The County Council should clarify whyBerry Farm, north of site ELH 007 is not included in the Site boundary of this site.
• Site ELH 009 It is considered that this site at West End has the potential to act as a replacement housing waste recycling centre (HWRC) site for the existing HWRC in Shamblehurst Lane, Hedge End, subject to satisfactory screening. The site may also have potential for other waste treatment purposes, such as a biowaste processing facility.Thesiteis in an area of woodland located within the Countryside and Strategic Gap and may have ecological constraints (habitats and species) work is needed to establish opportunities within the site. There may be visual impacts and drainage issues. The site is accessible to nearby main roads and is in a noisy location. The Council supports its further consideration.
• Site ELH 010 The Borough Council recognises that if the Strategic Development Area (SDA) proposal, North/ North East of Hedge End is progressed it will be necessary for waste issues including potentially an additional HWRC to be properly considered. It is considered that the issue should be considered separately as part of the implementation of the South East Plan. The Borough Council has objected to the SDA location
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics34 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
82 Eastleigh Borough Council
given that transportation and infrastructure issues have yet to be resolved, but there is no objection to the need for any SDA to incorporate appropriate provision for waste disposal and recycling
• The County Council should clarify the absence of specific proposals for a replacement HWRC for Eastleigh town, Woodside Avenue. This could be undertaken in conjunction with the AAP for the SHSEZ.
4. For accuracy and clarity the following sites should be relabelled by the County Council:
ELH 006 –Eastleigh Sewage Treatment Works Site, Eastleigh as Land South of Eastleigh Sewage Treatment Works.
ELH 009 –Botley Road Site, Hedge End as
Botley Road Site, West End.
ELH 010 – Hedge End Strategic Development Area as North/ North East of Hedge End Strategic Development Area.
• Employment land and industrial estates potentially suitable for minerals or waste development. 1. Site 100 A development brief has been commissioned for this site; a draft is expected early summer 2007. This needs to be taken into account when further considering this site. The Borough Council therefore raises a holding objection to these proposals 2. Site 159, 164 and 165 The long term use of these sites in Eastleigh should be determined as part of the SHSEZ Area Action Plan. The use for waste handling and processing may be appropriate for parts of some of the sites, but the overall objective of the Borough Council is to maximise employment value. Formal site allocation could prejudice emerging proposals. There may be potential negative impacts to the airport depending on the chosen use and if it would attract birds into the area. The Borough Council will seek to engage with Hampshire County Council closely in further work for these site allocations. The Borough Council raises a holding objection to the proposals for these sites u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics35 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
83 Eastleigh Borough Council
3. Site 160 There is a development brief for this site. This needs to be taken into account when further considering this site. The Borough Council therefore raises a holding objection to these proposals. 4. Site 161 This site has recently been developed therefore there is limited potential on this site. 5. Site 170 There is a potential impact with noise and hours of use etc which could conflict with the nearby residential units, in particular the new development at Dowd’s Farm, Hedge End. Further work needs to be undertaken on the potential impact of minor or enclosed uses in this site, however the Borough Council does not wish to raise an objection on this site. 6. Site 171 There is a potential impact with noise and hours of use etc which could conflict with the nearby residential units, in particular the new development at Dowd’s Farm, Hedge End. Further work needs to be undertaken on the potential impact of minorusesinthissite,howevertheBorough Council does not wish toraiseanobjection on this site. 7. Site 191 There may be potential negative impacts of these uses on the environment due to its location in close proximity to the Itchen Valley Country Park and the River Itchen which is designated as a SAC. The proposals will have to be subject to the Habitats Regulations Assessment process and an appropriate assessment may be required. Access is an issue for this site and traffic impacts. There may also be detrimental visual impacts depending on the design of the scheme. The Borough Council therefore raises an objection to the proposals.
• Safeguarding and expansion
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics36 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
84 Eastleigh Borough Council
8. Ex 9 The Council supports the identification of a replacement HWRC site and acknowledges this should be given further consideration. 9. Ex10andEx 11 The Council objects to the proposals of expanding these sites due to detrimental traffic and visual impacts to the surrounding area. 10.Ex 12 The Council supports the identification of a replacement site and acknowledges this should be given further consideration.
• Corrections/Issues arising from the documents: The site map in the White Young Green document ‘a review of employment land and industrial estates in Hampshire for the suitability of minerals and waste management development’ (April 2007) has site 161 in the wrong location. There are potential Habitats Regulations issues on sites 159,164, 165 and 191. In Annex 1: ‘Specific sites ruled out of the process or withdrawn’ this section identifies ELH012 (a) Land at Portsmouth Road this section should also include ELH002 Alstom, Eastleigh as this is identified in the other section ‘problematic waste sites’ Site ELH011 Eastleigh Rail Linked site overlaps with site ELH002 Alstom, Eastleigh. The County Council needs to supply more detailed information on the proposed uses of the sites.
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics37 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
85 Eastleigh Borough Council
Appendix 6
Questions with direct relevance to Eastleigh Borough set out in the Minerals Plan consultation paper
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics38 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
86 Eastleigh Borough Council
Q5. a)Should the prior extraction opportunity at Daedalus Airfield (pAPA3) be reflected in the Hampshire Minerals Plan?
b) if yes should it be identified as;
i) A preferred area either as an alternative to Pickwell farm (pPA5), Hamble Airfiled (pPA6), Forest Lodge Farm (pPA7)?
ii)b) An additional Preferred Area?
Q6. a) Should Brownwich and Chilling Farms (pAPA6) be identified as a preferred area?
b) if yes, should it be identified as;
i) A preferred area either as an alternative to Pickwell farm (pPA5), Hamble Airfield (pPA6), Forest Lodge Farm (pPA7)?
ii)b) An additional Preferred Area?
Q18. Does the Minerals Resource area (MRA) serve a useful purpose given the Hampshire Minerals Plan will identify specific preferred areas and areas of search to meet Hampshire’s land-won sand and gravel requirements?
Q20. Will the proposals for updating the Mineral Resource Area (MRA) provide a more accurate boundary showing where land-won sand and gravel extraction is preferred and could take place?
Q21. Does the Landfill Potential Area (LPA) serve a useful purpose given the Hampshire Minerals Plan will identify specific preferred areas to meet Hampshire’s non-hazardous landfill requirements?
Q22. Will the proposals for updating the LPA provide a more accurate boundary showing where landfill is preferred and could take place?
Q23. Do the proposals for minerals safeguarding and consultation provide an appropriate balance between the desire to avoid needless sterilisation of u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics39 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
87 Eastleigh Borough Council
minerals resources, and to protect minerals infrastructure, whilst unavoiding un-necessary consultation?
Q25. Do the proposals for Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) ensure that all proven sand, gravel and brick making clay resources are identified?
Q26. Do the proposals for Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) ensure that essential existing and proposed minerals infrastructure is identified?
Q28. Does the proposed Area of Search for sharp sand and gravel strike the right balance between identifying areas within which planning permission is possible avoiding unrealistic locations and identifying sufficient land to address anticipated shortfalls?
Q29. Does the proposed Area of Search for soft sand strike the right balance between identifying areas within which planning permission is possible avoiding unrealistic locations and identifying sufficient land to address anticipated shortfalls?
Q30. Do the consultation proposals coupled with the proposals for identifying Mineral Safeguarding and Consultation Areas (MSAs and MSCs) provide an appropriate balance between the desire to avoid the needless sterilisation of mineral resources, and to protect minerals infrastructure, whilst avoiding un-necessary consultation?
u:\planning policy & design\projects\s2 - planning topics40 folders\s2min - minerals and waste\minerals and waste sites\cabinet report reg 26 consultation - november 2007.doc
88 Agenda Item 6
CABINET
Monday 10 December 2007
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT 2006-2007
Report of the Acting Planning Policy & Design Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Annual Monitoring Report be approved for submission to Government.
Summary
This report introduces the third Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) to be prepared under the new planning legislation. The AMR provides data and information on key planning policy issues and records the progress being made on various elements of the Local Development Framework (LDF).
Statutory Powers:
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2004.
Introduction
1. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning authorities to prepare an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). It covers the period 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007 and has to be submitted to the Secretary of State by the end of December.
Contents of the AMR
2. The AMR presents an analysis of the progress made on the Local Development Scheme (LDS), and provides data and analysis on various planning indicators set by the Government.
3. A further aspect of the AMR responds to the requirements of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3: Housing to deliver and maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for housing. This is to ensure local planning
89 authorities have sufficient suitable land available for housing to meet the Council’s strategic housing land requirement.
Financial Implications
7. None.
Risk Assessment
9. The submission of the AMR by the end of December will result in payment being made to the Council under the Planning Delivery Grant (PDG). In particular, attention will be given to the progress being made on meeting the targets in the Local Development Scheme, and developing and delivering targets set out in the PDG Consultation Paper.
10. The risk therefore is that if the deadline is not met; if the targets in the LDS are not achieved (without reasonable justification); or the target development and delivery are not sufficiently covered, then a reduced level of PDG can be expected.
Conclusions
13. Progress on meeting the LDS targets has been good, with only the Affordable Housing SPD being behind schedule.
14. One element which has not been included in the AMR is the data for core indicator 3.a, which is the amount of non-residential development which complies with parking standards set out within the LDF, and work needs to be done to assess how to collect the data for this indicator.
15. Over a 5-year period there is projected to be a deficit of 387 dwellings, and over a 10-year period the deficit is projected to be 1359 dwellings. It should be noted that the projections do not take into account windfall delivery, which based on figures between 2001 – 2006 has produced an average of 319 dwellings per annum in the Borough.
TONY WRIGHT Acting Planning Policy & Design Manager
90 Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 29 November 2007 Contact Officer: Laila Bassett Telephone No.: 023 8068 8168 E-Mail: [email protected] Appendices attached: One – Annual Monitoring Report (available via the Councils website www.eastleigh.gov.uk/meetings) Report No:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters which this report, or a significant part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in its preparation.
Background Documents:
PPS3: Housing (DCLG)
PPS12: Local Development Frameworks (DCLG)
Local Development Framework Core Output Indicators Update 1/2005 (DCLG)
LDF Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide (DCLG)
Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) – FAQ’s and Emerging Best Practice 2004 - 2005 (DCLG)
91 This page is intentionally left blank
92 Agenda Item 7 CABINET
10 December 2007
URBAN CHARACTER AREA APPRAISALS
Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy
RECOMMENDATION TO CABINET
That the Draft Character Appraisal documents at Appendix i to this report (available through the Council’s website) be approved as supplementary planning documents (SPD) subject to the incorporation of the proposed amendments listed in the schedules attached to this report as appendix ii as agreed by Hedge End, West End, and Botley, Eastleigh Local Area Committee, Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath and Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice, Hound.
Summary
Following discussion at 4 Area Committees (HEWEB, ELAC, BIFOHH and BHH) a detailed schedule of proposed amendments to the draft Urban Character Area Appraisals was agreed, for recommendation to Cabinet for adoption as SPD. The purpose of the proposed SPD(s) are to provide better guidance to planning applicants and the Council when considering new development in residential areas.
Statutory Powers
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Introduction
1. Like the earlier pilot study in Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury in 2005 the main purpose of the urban character appraisal work is to identify features which give residential areas their distinctive character and provide guidance for applicants, Area Committees and Council staff when planning applications are made, resulting in new residential development which fits better into its existing surroundings. The work is intended mainly to inform proposals for smaller scale development and infill schemes, not larger scale development, where development briefs are likely to provide more appropriate guidance. It is proposed that in their final form, the Character Area Appraisals be formally
d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\8\0\ai00018088\urbancharacterareaappraisalsreport0.doc
1 93 adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). (Full text of documents may be found on the Council’s website).
2. Following consultation carried out in July and August this year the work has now been considered by the relevant Area Committees, and a detailed schedule of comments and suggested detailed amendments has been agreed, covering generic issues and specific local proposals.
Description of the Work
3. A detailed description of the work was provided in the last report, but Members are reminded that the study (carried out by Roger Evans Associates) has focused on residential areas, with the bulk of the time available being used to analyse housing areas built up to the 70’s, the older areas being judged to have most capacity for change. More recent areas have been mapped in summary form. Non residential areas and Conservation Areas (with the exception of the Bursledon Special Character Area which extensively overlaps the Conservation Area) are excluded from the work as these are being reviewed separately. The work is also generally limited to residential development within urban settlements, excluding small groups of houses outside the urban edge.
4. Under the procedure introduced under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the Council may adopt a version of the document(s) after consultation as SPDs, which must include a sustainability appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment (see appendix iii). These SPDs will form part of the Local Development Framework. The target date for adoption is December 2007.
Consultation
5. Copies of the draft documents were sent to The Town and Parish Councils, placed in local libraries and posted on the web. Consultation details were published in the local press and the Borough News and 4 public exhibitions were held (1 in each local area). Members of the public were invited to comment on the appraisals and in particular identify any particular features which made a particular contribution to the character of individual areas.
6. A total of 96 people visited the exhibitions, with 41 at HEWEB, 3 at ELAC, 35 at BHH and 17 at BIFOHH.
7. A number of commentators suggested generic changes to the work, mainly in the way the documents are set out, requesting clearer guidance and identifying those things in particular which give particular places a distinctive and strong sense of character.
8. A number of ‘place specific’ comments were received from those with a detailed knowledge of the areas, at the time of the consultation and during the last cycle of Area Committees.
9. A summary of comments with a list of amendments agreed by the Area Committees is attached as appendix ii. Proposed changes have been based
d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\8\0\ai00018088\urbancharacterareaappraisalsreport0.doc
94 2 on the principle that the overall brief of the work remains as set out in paragraph 3 above.
10. One of the recommended amendments to the draft study for the BHH area concerns the future of the Crowsport Special Policy Area which is currently under review for possible inclusion in the Hamble Conservation Area. At the time of writing the outcome of the consultation exercise is uncertain and will not be resolved until Spring 2008. Under the circumstances it is proposed that the character area work for Crowsport remain in the Appraisal document until the outcome of the Conservation Area work is decided, with a note to the effect that it will be removed from the text in the event of inclusion in the Conservation Area (to avoid duplication of policy guidance).
11. In the event of a decision not to include Crowsport in the Conservation Area ,it is recommended that the Special Policy Area policies and detailed guidance should remain in the Character Area Appraisal document with a summary description in the appendix, which would confer SPD status to this Special Policy Area, allowing the stand alone SPA guidance to be superseded. The principle of including other SPA documents (with the descriptive text in summarised form in the appendix) within the Character Area Appraisals is also promoted in the schedule of amendments at Appendix 2.
12. Timetable:
Staffed Exhibitions in local areas took place:
• Hedge End 2000 Centre on 23rd July
• Civic Offices on 26th July
• Fair Oak Village Hall on 30th July
• Hamble Memorial Hall on 2nd August
Report consultation results and recommended amendments to Area Committees and Cabinet:
Committee Dates:
• HEWEB 22nd Oct • ELAC 30th Oct • BIFOHH 7th Nov • BHH 8th Nov • Cabinet 10th Dec
Print and publish adopted document 21st Dec
Financial Implications
13. It envisaged that the cost of the work required to prepare the Character Area Appraisals will be completed within available financial resources, subject to
d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\8\0\ai00018088\urbancharacterareaappraisalsreport0.doc
3 95 proposed amendments requiring no fundamental changes to the scope of the study.
14. Risk Management
Late adoption of the work as SPD may have an adverse impact on the Council’s Planning Delivery Grant. Extending the scope of the work significantly could cause delay. If guidance is not formally adopted in its final form, its value as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications would be greatly diminished.
Conclusion
15. Amendments to the draft Urban Character Area Appraisal work, taking into account information gathered from the consultation exercise will help to ensure that the documents make a positive contribution to the encouragement of residential development which takes better account of the local character of each area and opportunities to enhance it.
Paul Ramshaw Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 19 November 2007 Contact Officer: Julian Davies Tel No: 023 8068 8244 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices: 3 (see website for appendix i)
Report No: PP000026
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Area Appraisal 2005
d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\8\0\ai00018088\urbancharacterareaappraisalsreport0.doc
96 4 Appendix ii
Summary of Consultation Responses and Suggested Amendments to Draft Urban Character Area Appraisal Studies (HEWEB, ELAC, BIFOHH, BHH ) And Proposed Generic Changes
HEWEB
Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses
1-6 1 Suggest classify as one area, Changes in form of split is confusing. development apparent in different areas. No change proposed.
6 1 (DC comments) Southern/ Noted. Recent development Western/Telegraph Road- therefore not in detailed single and 2 storey, tree study area. No further action lined, widely spaced, at this stage. common roof form. Strong character.
8 1 Parking is a problem. Amend description.
9 3 (DC comments) Chalk Hill; Add comments to text and large detached dwellings, appropriate guidance tree lines, soft frontages, notes re trees and plots. generous plots. Strong character.
Parking is a problem. Amend description.
13 1 Extensive views to the north Views are limited from towards the airport. public vantage points. No further action.
There is a gentle slope Include reference to slope. towards the south/west of the area.
14 1 (DC comments) Midland Refer to distinctive estate, interwar/post war characteristics and strong housing, regular spacing, character in text and geometric layout, distinctive appropriate guidance house types. Strong notes re spacing and character. form.
15 1 Should discourage on-street Noted, not in the remit of parking. this study.
97 16 1 Discourage division into Noted, not in the remit of multi-occupancy properties. this study.
17/24 1 Review boundary to include Review boundary of 17, terraced housing in include part in area 24. Littlewood Gardens, and Woodland Mews, (Site South Botley House is between).
Predominant trees to front of Refer to trees in guidance. West End Road should be retained. South Botley Home Noted, but study does not could be redeveloped with seek to identify appropriate housing (terraced development sites. to complement terraced houses to N&S).
23 1 Some non-residential uses Parking noted in study, included, with parking issues. minor non-residential uses, no change.
24 1 Exclude commercial Review boundary. properties opposite Chapel Road.
25 1 Discourage division into Noted, not in the remit of multi-occupancy properties. this study.
27 1 (DC comments) Lower New Refer to distinctive Road/Hope Road bungalows, characteristics and strong regular spacing, regular character in text and frontages. Strong character. appropriate guidance notes.
29 1 Four residential properties Amend in area 29. are in the commercial centre 8-14 Chapel Road.
30 1 Discourage division into Noted, not in the remit of multi-occupancy properties. this study.
38 1 Older properties adjoining Review this area for Shamblehurst Lane should inclusion (5-29) be included in detailed study. Shamblehurst Lane.
47 6 Restrict height of Not necessarily appropriate developments to 2 storeys through the whole area. No and individual or semi- action re Character area detached properties. study.
98 Large scale apartment blocks Noted. Add note re like those on Bursledon Road planting with new are inappropriate in the development. context of this character area in terms of mass, scale, density and siting.
New blocks are built without boundary planting.
Traffic flow is increasing Noted. Traffic issues without mitigation. already picked up in guidance.
Reference is made to the Noted. No action re poor quality of footways in the Character area study. area.
47 6 Treatment of recreation Noted, but not directly ground by Town Council does appropriate for inclusion in not reflect its original text. purpose.
The landmark spire of St Already identified as a John the Evangelist Church is landmark feature in study, blocked by new development no further action. from the recreation ground.
Traffic regulations are not Noted, but not directly enforced re heavy vehicles. appropriate for inclusion in Traffic management to direct text. vehicles to strategic roads is required.
20 MPH speed limit required.
Appraisal work is too late. Noted. No action re this.
Useful and informative Noted. No action re this. exhibition.
47 6 (DC comments): Refer to strength of character mainly defined Bursledon Road/St Johns by the form and materials Road strong character re of older properties in the older properties around area. spacing, appearance, positioning.
50-54 1 Edge of Hedge End but part Note Hedge End/Botley in in Botley Parish. summary description.
55 3 Freegrounds Road and Hobb Amend description to Lane identify the origins of the
99 (Southern part) are area and later infill. incorrectly classified and need a separate character area, because they include Victorian villas and inter-war housing. Subsequent infilling has taken place with newer housing.
Retain brick wall boundaries. Add to description.
Dominant overhead power Add to description. cables.
55 3 Increased levels of housing Noted. Add reference to of 2 or more floors is the local street context. detrimental to the character of the area.
Building should be the same Noted. Not likely to be density as the older existing appropriate throughout the development. area.
56 1 Refer to distinctive thatched Add reference. cottage on Freegrounds Road.
60 1 Guidance note re uniformity Remove guidance notes of building heights (south end re this. of Wildern Lane) is too prescriptive and does not allow an appropriate increase in building height/density towards the centre of H. End.
64 1 Area is in Botley Parish. Amend text to read ‘on the eastern edge of Hedge End in the Parish of Botley’.
65 1 2 cottages go back to early Mention distinctive 18th century, one is thatched. historic houses in text.
Description of properties on Amend description to the northern edge of Long ‘northern edge of Boorley Common not geographically Green’ accurate, they are part of Boorley Green.
Long views from western Add to description and edge of Winchester Road to refer to views. Hedge End should be kept open.
Trees dominated by mature Add to guidance notes.
100 broadleaved species. Refer to include new trees when opportunities arise.
66 1 Oatlands Close is not part of Amend appropriate rest of grouping. It aligns with descriptions to add detail, Oatlands Rd. In terms of the but no change to area order of age. The properties boundary. in Maddoxford Way were built at the same time as Maddoxford Lane in the late 50’s and early 60’s. The properties in Peartree Close were built in the 70’s .
Development is in Boorley Green, not Long Common.
Oatlands Close includes some newer infill development.
68 2 Bulk of properties built in 50’s Amend description. and 60’s. Also as previously mentioned location is Boorley Green not Long Common.
Ref character of area, need Add to guidelines. to retain plot frontages and building line esp. in Oatlands Road.
The area was developed from Note hedge origins. old Nursery land on North side of Oatlands Rd and the whole area has significant plot depths which are narrow and are bounded by mature traditional hedges.
As the whole area followed Amend to refer to old field boundaries there are hedgerow trees. significant deciduous trees along property boundaries and in particular between Oatlands Rd and Crow’s Nest Lane. Also in Maddoxford Lane and rear gardens of Oatlands Close.
There is to my knowledge Noted, but no change to only one TPO’d tree in document. Boorley Green and significant
101 species not TPO’d. There is a need for an accurate tree survey to prevent loss of character.
68 2 Description in text refers Noted, but no change to maintaining existing plot document. widths. Recent backfill development breaches this and has introduced development that is cramped in comparison.
(DC comments) Add to description.
Maddoxford Lane, strong character, bungalows, regular spacing, urban edge setting.
69 1 Description referring to Long Amend to refer to Boorley Common is incorrect. Green.
69 1 Agree with retention of Hedge Noted, but guidance refers Boundaries extend comment to plot frontage boundaries to cover properties adjoining and is less relevant to Crow’s Nest Lane Crow’s Nest Lane where boundary types are mixed.
70 1 Crow’s Nest Lane. This lane Comments noted, add is bordered with significant reference to trees. Oak and occasional Elm trees that give the lane character and are now very old Crow’s Nest Lane is named because of the number of rooks roosting in the trees. The existing trees Noted, but outside study need protection. area. Urgent need for tree survey
as already mentioned.
Area omits Boorley Green Planting proposals already Cottages and Boorley Green mentioned in document. Farm House plus area beside farm. The cottages are probably late 19th but are surrounded by mature hedging which should be protected.
In any development involving Traffic issues noted, but Oatlands Rd and particularly
102 Crow’s Nest Lane there outside scope of this study. should be measures put in to resist traffic rat running e.g. pinch points, use of planting.
Guide on materials to be Use of materials less consistent with 69. consistent on Crow’s Nest Lane, no change proposed.
71 1 No mention of maintaining Plot widths very variable plot widths as in other areas. here. No change to document proposed.
72 1 Overhead cables and traffic Noted. Add to levels are a negative description. influence in this area.
73 1 Guidelines re Holmesland Include reference to roof Estate required re poor roof forms in description. extensions.
Attention needs to be drawn Refer to garage courts in to poor quality garage courts. text.
75 1 Traffic speeds high. Narrow Mitigation of impacts footpaths on west side of referred to already. Refer to Winchester Road narrow footpath in text.
77 4 Traffic and parking are a Noted. Modify description of problem parking.
Parking on verges is a Amend guidance to refer problem. Development to opportunity to plant on should provide more parking verges. Provision of more bays, possibly on verges. parking outside the remit of this study.
78 4 Low railings required to Noted, but not directly enable youngsters to play ball appropriate for inclusion in games but not run into fairly text. busy access road.
Green needs to be enhanced. Already referred to in guidelines.
Reinforce distinctive Refer to distinctive character of Four Acre characteristics and strong character in text and (DC comments) Four Acre, appropriate guidance distinctive semi–detached, notes re spacing, form hipped roofs, around central and materials. green, red brick and clay tiles (adjoining area 77 uses similar materials) strong character.
103 Other 3 Brook Lane should be In countryside, therefore comments included as it is a distinctive outside the remit of this area vulnerable to study. development pressures.
Other 1 West End PC concern re lack Noted. Outside the remit of comments of parking in centre and this study. further development in residential areas causing more parking pressures. Further development should therefore be discouraged which will add to this problem.
104
Appendix ii
ELAC
Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses
1 1 Mention potential for further Add note tree planting in grassed areas
2 1 Reference to uniformity in Add note to guidance building height applies only to northeast side of road
3 2 Refer to views of open Add note to description landscape across valley as well as hills
Refer to dense line of trees on eastern side of Pitmore Road Add note to description
Grass verges are used for Add note to description parking at peak periods
Revise boundary to west to include 5 semi-detached Revise boundary properties south of Allbrook Hill
4 1 Revise boundaries to east to Revise boundary exclude 5 semi-detached properties to south of Allbrook Hill.
Mention scout hall/church. Amend description.
8 1 (DC comments) Identify this Amend description to area with a strong distinctive refer to strong form and character. layout.
105 12 1 Refer to current Amend description redevelopment of houses to north of new flats on Twyford Road. Refer to Magnet works
15 1 Formal layout creates a Amend description strong character.
16 1 (DC comments) Note Amend description distinctive character based on layout and form.
22 3 (DC comments) Note Amend description to distinctive strong character refer to strong distinctive of residential grid streets. character (form, Refer to dominant red brick in enclosure, materials) reference to materials.
New build flats detract from street corners. Noted, no amendment
Poor quality raised beds and Note the state of late broken paving, mis matched 1970s General improvements. Improvement Area environmental works in description (within the residential parts of the Victorian grid street layout)
24 1 Note distinctive character Amend description (similar to 8).
28 1 Refer to new (South Street Amend Description development) proposed to south of this area.
29 1 Refer to new (South Street Amend Description development) proposed to south of this area.
31 1 Special policy area, see generic comments.
35 1 Refer to mixed use Amend Description development and the fact that housing association proposals are being considered for the Velmore housing area to replace some of the sub standard stock, and provide more
106 accommodation.
37 1 Special policy area, see generic comments.
107 BIFOHH
Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses
8 1 Area contains some Revise character area recent development. boundary to north west to exclude modern development on Sydney Road.
Note Church in Note St Mary’s church description (landmark)
13 2 Strength of character, East Note strength of character and West Drive, Sedgwick from Uniformity in Road (DC) individual streets and avenue planting on West Note avenue planting on East Drive West Drive
21 2 Strength of character of the Note strength of West Horton lane and character derived from Whalesmead area (DC) regularity of form and height on individual Refer to recently completed streets. houses/flats on site of works depot.
38 2 Whilst planting of hedge Noted, but no change to along south boundary of document. recreation ground is good for wild life, it obscures our view, gives cover for vandalism and costs a lot to maintain.
Scout hut opposite needs to Noted, but no change to be maintained document.
Note (re traffic) that the road Add note in description serves 2 main bus routes. re traffic
Housing is mainly Edwardian, Note strength of which are unique in the character of this street village. This older housing from style of housing contributes to the character of and relationship to the area. recreation ground
Note importance of recreation Already referred to in ground for various purposes. text
Any development to the rear Any back land
108 should not be visible from the development should be frontage subservient to the development on the road frontage
49 1 Remove/change photo of Remove/change photo pub as not included within character area boundary. (include in area 48)
51 1 Too many new homes Noted, no change to document
General Comments relating to BIFOHH areas
Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses
N/A 1 The production of this None document is too late as there are already examples of poor planning and design in the area, which are contrary to the recommendations of this document. Anything that can be done to reinforce better planning to make our settlement more cohesive and attractive is welcome.
109
BHH
Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses
4 1 The Crescent and Note strength of Character surrounding areas in Netley- in description interwar housing, similar design ,regular spacing, strong character (DC)
6 1 Seaview Estate Netley, Note strength of Character interwar semi/detached in description housing, very similar designs, regular spacing, strong character, eroded recently but worthy of note(DC)
9 2 Station road Netley, area of Note Strength of character change, but still strong in text and reflect form of character , with distinctive buildings in guidance dwellings/villas, character notes with words needs to be ‘Encourage developers to strengthened.(DC) retain the proportion and style of the traditional frontage to reduce level of change and impact on the street scene’,
The demolition of Victorian Noted, no change to text. houses and replacement with flats detracts from the area.
11 1 Road boundaries to be Outside the remit of this changed to create traffic work, no change to text. calming.
Lack of space for cars to be parked off the road should be Outside the remit of this addressed work, no change to text.
36 1 Too much traffic Outside the remit of this work, no change to text.
37 3 The period of buildings in this Note that some buildings area includes earlier have an earlier origin in examples than suggested in
110 the description. the text.
Too many large modern houses have been built, reducing the mix and leaving Suggested guidance very few smaller houses in supports the retention of the area. smaller dwellings.
Refer to the importance of Reference is already made maintaining river views. to the obstruction of open views, but specific reference can be made to existing river views in the descriptive text. Marine related uses and Amend description to agriculture/countryside refer to marine related should be mentioned uses, agriculture and countryside.
37 1 Mention pub in description Add pub to list of non- residential uses.
50 2 HGV traffic use this route Noted , but outside remit of (Satchell Lane) on route to this study- no amendment to marinas. descriptive text.
Retain ribbon development Noted- include reference style on Satchell Lane (single in guidance note to the plot depth) effect that any new backland development permitted should be subservient to that on the main frontage
52 4 Divide into two separate Include Oakwood way as character areas, one for a separate area. Crowsport and one for Oakwood Way. Provide SPA Note intention to exclude policies for Crowsport in Crowsport from further guidance notes. Refer to detailed analysis as the importance of views to river. Borough Council have resolved to consider Note strong character (DC). including the area within the (extended) Hamble Conservation Area, which will also supersede the Crowsport Special Policy Area if agreed.
Boundary to be
111 Car park is outside area considered as part of Conservation Area Marina Drive should be in extension. area
Outside the remit of this Access to marina by No 11 study. should be closed Detailed guidance to be Original buildings should be reviewed as part of permitted to have low tiled Conservation Area work pitched roofs. Felt roofs are difficult to insure.
59 1 Area 59 (Cirrus Gardens) is This is a relatively recently under threat ,from parking, developed area included in should be subdivided from the summary map. Any newer development. proposals for parking are outside the remit of this EBC have identified the area work. as a car parking site.
Green spaces in the area to be retained. Noted.
Hamble is not an urban area, ‘Urban’ in the borough wide should have been subjected context includes all to a rural character appraisal. settlements
This study is not in tune with Noted. other survey work being undertaken by the LAC (parking) No changes proposed to the text.
61 2 Revise period of development Add note to description (Verdon Avenue is pre- WW1).
Similar designs, regular Note strength of Character spacing, strong character in description (DC).
General Comments relating to BHH areas
Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses
N/A Retain the trees on the Netley Area in Conservation Area, Court site. so outside remit of work.
112
Add guidance favouring Not appropriate in all cases, family houses with gardens no change to guidance for children and infants. notes,
More housing on the Hamble Noted, no change to text. peninsular will make travel very difficult. Support gravel extraction if this will prevent more building.
Don’t allow building on the Noted, no change to text. Pickwell fruit farm, which produces exceptional strawberries.
Stop back garden Noted, not always desirable developments which change to follow this principle in all the character of existing locations , but area specific streets and gardens. guidance may be appropriate in particular cases.
(Hamble) Create large car park for 100-200 cars to take them off village streets and Noted, but outside the remit help maintain character of of this study. village.
Broadway 1 Detached 1930’s relatively Outside settlement , off Hamble unaltered frontages, hipped Lane roofs, brick and tile. Not in therefore not strictly in appraisal document. (DC) remit of study, but could
add reference as a
summary area (which will
need to be added to map
and referred to in
methodology)
113 GENERIC ISSUES (RE ALL CHARACTER AREAS)
COMMENT SUMMARY SUGGESTED ACTION
Provide an indication of strength of Include in document. character in the description table for each character area.
Show the direction of important views and Include in document. location of key landmarks on the character area plans.
Provide a short paragraph in the Include in document. introduction making it clear that the guidance does not apply to comprehensive redevelopment.
Provide an additional note in guidance to Include in document. cover formal compositions where they occur – eg maintain symmetry.
Provide a short paragraph in the Include in document. introduction making it clear that the guidance should not be seen as a means of preventing well designed development or resisting positive change, and neither is it intended to identify potential development sites, although the work will be useful in supporting future urban capacity studies.
Include more information from relevant Include updated SPA guidance notes Local Plan policies and special policy area where relevant to individual character guidance. areas in this document and include summary of background text in appendices, to enable freestanding SPA documents to be superseded.
Include town centres. Outside the remit of this study, no action.
Provide more detail from field study sheets Include in document. where this informs examples of particular distinctive/strong character, eg significant hedge boundaries, detail of particular building materials, etc.
Use clear photos. Achieve as good a resolution as is practicable.
Provide clearer explanation of descriptive Include glossary with simple diagrams. criteria.
Numbering of areas is confusing. Clearer reference to detailed/summary character areas or re-ordering. Possible
114 repositioning of key map in document.
Include road names. Difficult on all small maps - suggest listing the main roads for each area in the description, prefaced by local summary of location eg Botley, Horton Heath, etc.
Link methodology more clearly with Clearer cross reference. Annexes.
Clarity required re the detailed opportunities Drop references to ‘extending’ grassed to improve grassed areas. verges, be more specific about tree planting opportunities in these areas.
115 This page is intentionally left blank
116 Appendix iii
SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL REPORT FOR
CHARACTER AREA APPRAISALS
September 2007
117
Contents Page Page
1 Non-technical Summary 1
2 Consultation 2
3 Process 2
4 Scoping Report 2
5 Compliance with the SEA Directive 2-3
6 Baseline Data 4
7 Key issues and Problems 4
8 SA Framework 4
9 SPD Objective and Options 5 -6
10 Mitigation 6
11 Monitoring 6
Appendix 1 – Matrix Tables Option 1 – 4 7 - 12
Appendix 2 – Conlusion 12
Tables:
1.1 Compliance with SEA Directive 2 - 3
1.2 SA Framework Objectives 4
1.3 SPD Objective Appraisal 5
1.4 Matrix – Option 1 7 - 8
1.5 Matrix – Option 2 9 - 10
1.6 Matrix – Option 3 11 - 12
1
118 Sustainability Appraisal (SA)/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Sustainability Appraisal Report Character Area Appraisals Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
1. Non-technical Summary
In order for the Character Area Appraisals documents to become Supplementary Planning Documents it needs to be put through an integrated SA/SEA. There are four Character Area Appraisal documents that cover the following Local Areas:
• Bursledon, Hound and Hamble • Hedge End, West End and Botley • Eastleigh • Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath
The Chandler’s Ford local area is not included in this assessment due to there being a current adopted SPD for this area – Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Areas 2005.
This assessment is to ensure that the documents are as sustainable as possible and results in the protection and enhancement of the environment, meets social and economic needs and maintains the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
This integrated environmental report has addressed three options:
1. Do nothing – Do not produce an SPD 2. Produce an SPD with specially selected character areas 3. Produce SPD with a comprehensive approach, to appraise all of the Local Areas (excluding Chandler’s Ford)
The preferred option is Option 3 the production of Supplementary Planning Documents with a comprehensive approach, to appraise all of the local areas (excluding Chandler’s Ford). This ensure a holistic approach is undertaken which promotes suitable development in each area and protects against inappropriate development. This is clearly outlined in tables 1.4 -1.6.
2
119
2. Consultation
2.1 This SA/SEA Integrated Environmental report has been put through a six week formal consultation process alongside the four SPD documents. The statutory consultees are:
• Natural England • The Environment Agency • English Heritage
2.2 The Statement of Community Involvement sets out what other groups/ individuals were consulted. The SPD documents and the Sustainability Appraisal Report will be made publicly available on the Borough Councils website. (www.eastleigh.gov.uk)
3. Process
3.1 The Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment process has been undertaken throughout the SPD process and the assessment of the SPD objective and options were undertaken by the project team to ensure a holistic approach was achieved.
3.2 The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review, adopted May 2006, sets out the policies on which this SPD is set. These policies have been put through a SA/SEA; the report for this assessment is available from the planning policy and design unit.
4. Scoping Report
4.1 The Scoping Report (Stage A) sets out the baseline data and SA framework for the entire LDF. This has gone through the formal consultation process (September 2006) and has been formally adopted by the Council (April 2007) The Scoping Report can be found at www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-3227. This report will be updated annually.
5. Compliance with SEA directive
5.1 The following table outlines how the SEA directive requirements are met throughout this Integrated Environmental Report.
3
120
Information to be included in an Relevant Sections Environmental in the Integrated Environmental Report under SEA Regulations Report
An outline of the Contents, main objectives 3,4 of the plan and its relationship with other relevant plans and programmes The relevant aspects of the current state of 4,9 the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan The environmental characteristics of areas 4 likely to be significantly affected.
Any existing environmental problems 4 which are relevant to the plan, including in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC.
The environmental protection objectives, 4,9 established at international, Community or national level, which are relevant to the plan and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation.
The likely significant effects on the 4 environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors
The measures envisaged to prevent, 10 reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan
An outline of the reasons for selecting the 9,3 alternatives dealt with and a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties.
A description of monitoring measures 12
4
121
A non-technical summary of the 1 information in the SA
Table 1.1
6. Baseline Data
6.1 The baseline data for this document can be found within the Scoping Report and Baseline data report as highlighted in section 4. These reports cover a wide range of topics which encompass those within the SPD therefore no extra baseline data was required.
7. Key issues and problems
The key issues and problems are identified within the scoping report, chapter 5 at www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-3227.
8. SA Framework
8.1 The SA Framework can be found within the Scoping Report (Chapter 6) a summary of the SA Objectives are in the following table:
SA Framework Objectives 1. Housing 2. Employment and Economy 3. Equity 4. Community Facilities 5. Land 6. Natural Resources 7. Traffic Impacts 8. Environmental Health and Safety 9. Energy Consumption (non-transport) 10. Climate Change 11. Waste Management and 12. Nature Conservation Minimisation 13. Open space, sport and recreation 14. Landscape and townscape quality 15. Culture and Heritage 16. Crime reduction and the perceptions of crime 17. Flood Risk 18. Global sustainable development Table 1.2
9. SPD Objective and Options
9.1 The objective of the SPD is:
To provide guidance to development control staff and prospective planning applicants to ensure that new development in Eastleigh Borough is appropriate to its surroundings and helps to retain the character that gives each area its identity.
5
122
SA Objective SPD Commentary Objective 1. Housing 3 Appropriate development for the area 2. Employment and Economy O 3. Equity ? 3 4. Community Facilities O 5. Land ? 3 Appropriate development for the area- best use of land 6. Natural Resources O 7. Traffic Impacts ? 3 Recommendation to reduce traffic. Dependent on areas 8. Environmental Health and Safety O 9. Energy Consumption(non-transport) O 10. Climate Change O 11. Waste management and O minimisation 12. Nature Conservation ? 3 Covered by other policies, potential for improvement 13. Open space, sport and recreation 3 Retention of open space. Covered by other policies, potential for improvement 14. Landscape and townscape 3 Development character appropriate for its setting 15. Culture and Heritage 3 Development appropriate for its setting 16. Crime reduction and the ? Uncertain perceptions of crime 17. Flood Risk O 18. Global Sustainable development 3 Improvement of areas environment – protection against unsuitable development Table 1.3
6
123
The Options for the SPD are:
1. Do nothing – Do not produce an SPD 2. Produce an SPD with specially selected character areas 3. Produce SPD with a comprehensive approach, to appraise all of the Local Areas (excluding Chandler’s Ford)
10. Mitigation
This SPD provides guidance to development control staff and prospective planning applicants. Therefore it is not necessary to include a table of mitigation measures due to the assessment process on the over-arching Local Plan Review policies.
11. Monitoring
The documents will be monitored through the Development Control process. The Council’s GIS system and the booking in of planning applications process will log the use of the documents. This can then be fed into the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) process.
7
124 Appendix 1
Option One – Do Nothing
SA Objective Potential Impact Commentary 1. Housing ?X SPD appropriate development in area 2. Employment and O Economy 3. Equity ? Uncertain 4. Community Facilities O 5. Land ? Most suitable use of land in area 6. Natural Resources O 7. Traffic Impacts ? 8. Environmental Health O and Safety 9. Energy O Consumption(non- transport) 10. Climate Change O 11. Waste management O and minimisation 12. Nature ?X Existing policies which protect nature conservation areas Conservation 13. Open space, sport ?X Existing policies which protect open space and recreation 14. Landscape and ?X townscape character 15. Culture and ?X Heritage 16. Crime reduction and ? 125 8 126
the perceptions of crime 17. Flood Risk O 18. Global Sustainable ?X SPD areas can be protected against inappropriate development development Table 1.4 Key
3 Clear Positive Effect Where a policy clearly aims to encourage / promote one of the sustainability criteria
?3 Possible Positive Effect Where a policy may have a positive effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain
x Clear Negative Effect Where a policy is likely to have an adverse effect on one of the sustainability criteria
?x Possible Negative Effect Where a policy may have a negative effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain
? Uncertain overall Effect Where there is a relationship between a policy and a criterion but the effect is uncertain. Also where there is a combination of positive and negative effects may the overall effect uncertain
0 No Impact Where there is no direct relationship between a policy and a criterion
9 Option Two – Produce an SPD with specially selected character areas
SA Objective Potential Impact Commentary 1. Housing ? 3 Only focused on certain areas 2. Employment and O Economy 3. Equity ? 3 Only focused on certain areas 4. Community Facilities O 5. Land ? 3 Only focused on certain areas 6. Natural Resources O 7. Traffic Impacts ? 8. Environmental Health O and Safety 9. Energy O Consumption(non- transport) 10. Climate Change O 11. Waste management O and minimisation 12. Nature ? 3 Covered by other policies – opportunity to increase/enhance however Conservation only in certain areas not a wider holistic assessment 13. Open space, sport ? 3 Covered by other policies – opportunity to increase/enhance however and recreation only in certain areas not a wider holistic assessment 14. Landscape and ? 3 townscape character 15. Culture and ? 3 Heritage 16. Crime reduction and ? the perceptions of crime 127 10 128
17. Flood Risk O 18. Global Sustainable ? 3 Restricted to certain areas does not take the wider areas into development consideration Table 1.5 Key
3 Clear Positive Effect Where a policy clearly aims to encourage / promote one of the sustainability criteria
?3 Possible Positive Effect Where a policy may have a positive effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain
x Clear Negative Effect Where a policy is likely to have an adverse effect on one of the sustainability criteria
?x Possible Negative Effect Where a policy may have a negative effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain
? Uncertain overall Effect Where there is a relationship between a policy and a criterion but the effect is uncertain. Also where there is a combination of positive and negative effects may the overall effect uncertain
0 No Impact Where there is no direct relationship between a policy and a criterion
11 Option Three – Produce SPD with a comprehensive approach, to appraise all of the Local Areas(excluding Chandler’s Ford)
SA Objective Potential Impact Commentary 1. Housing 3 2. Employment and O Economy 3. Equity 3 4. Community Facilities O 5. Land 3 6. Natural Resources O 7. Traffic Impacts 8. Environmental Health O and Safety 9. Energy O Consumption(non- transport) 10. Climate Change O 11. Waste management O and minimisation 12. Nature ? 3 Current polices cover nature conservation. Opportunities to increase/ Conservation enhance if appropriate to area 13. Open space, sport ? 3 Current polices cover nature conservation. Opportunities to increase/ and recreation enhance if appropriate to area 14. Landscape and 3 townscape character 15. Culture and 3 Heritage 129 12 130
16. Crime reduction and ? the perceptions of crime 17. Flood Risk O 18. Global Sustainable 3 Best use of land, improving townscape in areas, protecting against development unsuitable development Table 1.6 Key
3 Clear Positive Effect Where a policy clearly aims to encourage / promote one of the sustainability criteria
?3 Possible Positive Effect Where a policy may have a positive effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain
x Clear Negative Effect Where a policy is likely to have an adverse effect on one of the sustainability criteria
?x Possible Negative Effect Where a policy may have a negative effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain
? Uncertain overall Effect Where there is a relationship between a policy and a criterion but the effect is uncertain. Also where there is a combination of positive and negative effects may the overall effect uncertain
0 No Impact Where there is no direct relationship between a policy and a criterion
13 Appendix 2
The preferred option is Option 3 the production of Supplementary Planning Documents with a comprehensive approach, to appraise all of the local areas (excluding Chandler’s Ford). This ensure a holistic approach is undertaken which promotes suitable development in each area and protects against inappropriate development. 131 14 This page is intentionally left blank
132 Agenda Item 9
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT SCRUTINY PANEL
Thursday 15th November 2007
CABINET
Monday 10 December 2007
ADOPTION OF CARBON COMPENSATION POLICY PAPER AS PART OF GOING CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2012
Report of the Sustainability Policy Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION to Environment and Transport Scrutiny Panel:
It is recommended that the Scrutiny Panel considers the Carbon Compensation Policy Paper and notify Cabinet of its views.
RECOMMENDATION to Cabinet:
It is recommended that Cabinet agrees that this Carbon Compensation Policy Paper (which itself includes a number of recommendations) should be followed by the Climate Change Programme Board to aid achieving carbon neutrality by 2012.
Summary
The Climate Change Programme Board (CCPB), chaired by the Leader of the Council, is directing the work required for the Council to become carbon neutral by 2012. Such carbon neutrality will require the Council to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions from its key activities as much as practicable and then invest in carbon saving activities to at least compensate for unavoidable carbon dioxide emissions. The CCPB has already discussed and agreed the recommendations made in this Policy Paper and wishes it to be more formally adopted as Council Policy.
Statutory Powers:
Local Government Act 2000
133
1. Introduction
1.1 The Council plans to become “Carbon Neutral” by July 2012 by balancing its carbon dioxide emissions from key business activities with carbon dioxide saving projects that equalise or more than compensate for such emissions. It has already been accepted by the Climate Change Programme Board (CCPB) that the Council will achieve this primarily by reducing carbon dioxide emissions from its key business activities as much as possible. Those key activities have been identified already by the CCPB and will not be discussed here. This paper concentrates on the other side of the equation - namely how residual carbon dioxide emissions can be balanced (compensated) by the Council with carbon dioxide saving projects.
1.2 For the purposes of “Carbon Neutrality”, the Council proposes to only count carbon dioxide emissions. However it recognises the vital part that other carbon related greenhouse gas emissions (such as methane) play in causing the enhanced greenhouse effect that has led to the climate changes that we are experiencing now and for the next 30 to 40 years. This focus on carbon dioxide is in keeping with national and international targets (such as the Kyoto Protocol). For the purposes of clarity, any mention of “Carbon” in the following text therefore refers to carbon dioxide.
1.3 The CCPB has already acknowledged that, although the aim is to reduce the Council’s carbon dioxide emissions as much as practicable, there will still be some residual and unavoidable carbon dioxide emissions from the Council’s key activities. For the Council to become “Carbon Neutral”, these unavoidable emissions will have to be balanced by projects that will lead to at least the same amount of carbon dioxide savings. In addition it has been suggested by some that the Council should also count the carbon sequestration (storage) capacity of the vegetation (namely trees) already growing on Council owned land as part of this balancing equation.
This previously suggested carbon neutrality balance could be more simply expressed as an equation thus:
Council key carbon dioxide emissions = carbon dioxide emission saving projects + future carbon dioxide sequestration projects + existing carbon dioxide sequestration on Council owned land
However, as will be shown in this Policy Paper in section 5 in particular, the estimation of the existing or future carbon sequestration capacity of Council owned land is fraught with difficulties and it is recommended that the equation be simplified thus:
134 Council key carbon dioxide emissions = Council carbon dioxide emission saving projects
1.4 This Policy Paper has already been discussed and agreed by the CCPB. The paper outlines the main carbon compensation issues for the Council in trying to achieve Carbon Neutrality and make specific recommendations that will influence further work. These issues include:
• Carbon dioxide emitting key activities not being counted under the Going Carbon Neutral by 2012 process • Methodologies and sources for estimating carbon dioxide emissions/carbon sequestration capacities • Current relative financial costs per tonne of carbon dioxide saved by various energy efficiency and sustainable/renewable energy technologies • Using trees and other vegetation to sequester (store) carbon or produce biofuels as a means to compensate for carbon dioxide emissions • Existing carbon compensation/offsetting funds and projects in the marketplace – effectiveness and costs • Local Carbon Compensation (offsetting) and its potential role in the local Planning process and the influence on others
2. Carbon dioxide emitting key activities not being counted under the Going Carbon Neutral by 2012 process
2.1 Previous discussions of the CCPB have summarised the reasons for omitting counting some carbon dioxide emissions connected with Council business activities. These have been summarised in tabular form already and are minuted by the CCPB. However, the Council is also very aware that it is not counting embedded energy use (and hence carbon dioxide emissions) from such things as the construction phase of new buildings or the energy used in producing and/or transporting goods and services that the Council procures - see section 2.2. It is also mindful of its role to significantly influence others, such as Developers, through its own example but also through the land use planning processes. Such indirect influence on others’ carbon dioxide emissions through a local Carbon Compensation Fund is discussed under 7. below.
2.2 Whilst the Council will not actually count carbon dioxide emissions from these important sources outlined above, it takes such issues seriously and will address them through its Sustainable Procurement policies and practices and via its project management systems. For example, if a new Council owned or funded building is planned, it will have to be carbon neutral (or zero carbon as it is often known) during its anticipated lifetime’s use. In order to achieve this, the building would have to be carefully designed to minimise heating and power requirements in use and any energy still required by the use of the building will have to be generated from renewable/low carbon energy sources on site (preferably) or
135 renewables/low carbon off site and/or the carbon dioxide created over its anticipated lifetime use compensated for in some way. The building would also have to be designed sustainably and the goods and services required for its construction carefully chosen. It will need to be constructed from building materials sourced as locally as practicable, with as much recycled and sustainable building materials as possible and with the minimum of cement and concrete. In taking a sustainable procurement and sustainable building approach, the embedded carbon dioxide from energy required to make products and construct actual buildings will be reduced to a minimum.
Recommendation 2.1
That the Council’s project management systems and processes should incorporate mechanisms to ensure that any future new buildings (or major renovation/extensions to existing buildings) owned or significantly funded by the Council be carbon neutral over its lifetime use. Such mechanisms should ideally be incorporated at Project Board level and be part of each Board’s performance monitoring at the various stages in the Project Management documentation and process.
Recommendation 2.2
That the Council’s Gateway Review procurement process should include a formal review of the degree to which carbon dioxide emissions (and other environmental impacts) over the anticipated lifetime use of the product or service have been accounted for in the choice of product or service. Products and services not covered by Gateways, should be reviewed under the Council’s sustainable procurement processes.
3. Methodologies for estimating carbon dioxide emissions/sequestration capacities
3.1 It is important that the ways in which the Council’s carbon dioxide emissions or carbon dioxide sequestration capacities are calculated are open, honest, transparent and auditable to instil public and internal confidence in the processes involved. This approach would also be in keeping with the Council’s values. Much of the criticisms of current carbon compensation/offsetting schemes arise from suspicions that misleading information has been put forward in order to promote dubious offsetting schemes. (This aspect is covered in more detail in 6. below).
Recommendation 3.1
That the advice of our internal audit team should be sought by the CCPB at an early stage about processes by which the Council can ensure that any publicised data (and the assumptions upon which they are based) can be
136 open to scrutiny in confidence that the necessary audit trails have been put in place.
3.2 In estimating potential carbon dioxide emissions from key Council activities, a number of sets of carbon dioxide conversion factors can be used e.g. to convert KWh of gas used or number of miles travelled by an “average” petrol car into the relevant carbon dioxide emissions. It is vital, therefore, that the Council use such sets of conversion factors wisely and consistently, from “trusted” sources.
Recommendation 3.2
That the Council consistently use DEFRA (or similar central government department) datasets and carbon dioxide conversion factors whenever estimating carbon dioxide emissions from key Council activities and that any carbon dioxide inventories are consistent with best available practice.
3.3 Similarly, if the Council in future wishes to use carbon sequestration in any carbon dioxide emission balancing, then it is important to use trusted sources for any carbon dioxide sequestration data and to make clear on what assumptions estimations of sequestration capacity are based. However, even Forestry Research, the UK government’s own expert body, is still trying to get to grips with the carbon storage capacity of trees in real life situations. Thus finding a source for such data is highly problematical and is discussed in more detail in 5. below.
4. Current relative financial costs per tonne of carbon dioxide saved of various energy efficiency and sustainable/renewable energy technologies
4.1 In the same way that there is a waste management hierarchy, there is also an energy hierarchy equivalent. In the waste version, waste going to landfill is seen as the ultimate failure with minimising the creation of waste in the first place being the best option. In the energy hierarchy, minimising energy use is best whereas energy used from fossil fuels is considered the worst option.
4.2 Council investment in energy efficiency projects (including those in the transport sector) as the first choice way to compensate for its own carbon dioxide emissions also makes sense for other environmental reasons, such as air quality. However, installing energy efficiency measures (such as loft insulation in local homes) or investing in vehicles with better fuel consumption also has social (health) and economic benefits. This is because, for example, more comfortable, healthier homes are created when better insulation is installed and there could be local job creation in the energy efficiency sector as well as reduced fuel bills for the residents. Such investment in energy efficiency measures in local homes would also contribute positively to another key Council target under the terms of the Home Energy Conservation Act. Typical indicative costs per tonne of carbon
137 dioxide saved over the typical lifetime of 2 common energy efficiency measures used in the UK are given in the table below and have been derived from various Energy Saving Trust sources:
Estimates derived from Energy Savings Trust information from various sources and assumes installation in an “average” house Measure Typical cost to Typical Total CO2 Cost per install lifetime tonnes tonne CO2 savings over saved over lifetime lifetime Loft Insulation £500 40 years 40.0 £13 (200mm) Cavity Wall £500 40 years 30.0 £17 Insulation
Recommendation 4.1
That the Council, when considering where it should invest in carbon compensation projects, should always consider as a first choice projects that lead to the installation of energy efficiency measures or the use of fuel efficient vehicles of proven carbon dioxide saving pedigree.
4.3 The next best option in the energy hierarchy after reducing actual energy use is using energy from renewable energy sources. However, as there is a wide range of such technologies, some are more tried and tested than others and also some cost less per tonne of carbon dioxide saved. To illustrate this point, here is a list of renewable energy technologies with indicative typical costs per tonne of carbon dioxide saved over the lifetime use of the technology compared with fossil fuel equivalents based on UK costs. Information has been derived from several Energy Saving Trust sources.
Summary of common renewable energy technologies - information collated from Energy Saving Trust sources
Technology Cost* per tonne CO2 saved over lifetime (range) Biomass £30 - 230
Ground £30 - 350 Source Heat Pump
138 Small Scale £100-300 Hydro Solar Thermal £130 - 600 panels Wind Turbines £192 -220
Photovoltaic £550-1100 panels
*Cost of carbon dioxide savings vary depending on the type of fossil fuels that are displaced
Recommendation 4.2
That the Council, after exploring all energy efficiency measures possible within the local community for carbon compensation, will then consider renewable energy projects as the next best option with due regard to the relative costs per carbon dioxide thus saved.
4.4 There are a number of sustainable (low carbon) technologies that offer benefit over those powered by fossil fuels even though they do not deliver the same degrees of carbon dioxide savings as renewable energy technologies. These include gas fired combined heat and power schemes and hybrid vehicles for example.
Recommendation 4.3
That the Council considers investing in low carbon/sustainable energy technologies only where it is not possible to use renewable energy or energy efficiency measures to achieve desired carbon dioxide savings.
4.5 Although the aim of recommendation 4.1 is to minimise energy use by installing good energy efficiency measures, individual behaviour (for example in personal/family travel patterns, switching off unwanted electrical equipment, turning down heating controls, etc) greatly influences actual energy use in practice. However, it is much harder to quantify, especially ahead of time, what carbon dioxide savings will accrue through projects that seek to change personal and societal behaviour from a high-energy consumption pattern to a less energy intensive one.
Recommendation 4.4
That, whilst the Council will continue to encourage positive environmental behaviours by its staff, councillors and local community (through its Climate Change Action plan for example), it will not use such projects to compensate for its own carbon dioxide emissions.
139
5. Using trees and other vegetation to sequester (store) carbon or produce biomass/biofuels as a means to compensate for carbon dioxide emissions and as a renewable energy source
5.1 As already been mentioned in section 3.3 above, the use of trees and vegetation to sequester (store) carbon dioxide (and therefore use them in any carbon compensation schemes) is very much open to debate and criticism for many reasons. In order to explain the difficulties of carbon sequestration currently used by existing carbon compensation/offsetting schemes, it is necessary to explain the basis upon which trees are considered to “lock up” carbon dioxide thereby reducing atmospheric levels of the gas.
5.2 During photosynthesis in daylight hours, trees take up carbon dioxide in order to make up their wood, leaves, stems, roots etc. At the same time, oxygen is given up through respiration. A reverse process occurs at night, with carbon dioxide being given up and oxygen taken in. These processes are highly complex and result in some carbon being stored as timber and other carbon being lost to the soil as leaf shed, decay of dead branches etc and via the roots. Trees in this way capture and store carbon whilst they establish themselves and then the carbon balance equalises. Only the carbon that is stored in woody biomass such as roots, stems and branch material is locked away for the longer term. Forest soils are also an important pool of carbon. They too are a vital part of the carbon cycle and can act as both sources and sinks. The above explanation is an over simplification of the processes involved as this is not a technical paper. However, even Forestry Research, the government funded leading authority of forestry research in the UK, admits that ,,,,,,,,,, there are also mixed messages and uncertainty, particularly in how forests and wood products can be best used to limit human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The use of trees and woodland for climate change mitigation can only be optimised if the carbon (and other GHG) stocks and flows associated with forests and wood products are better quantified.
Summary from http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/FR/INFD-62HCJH
5.3 As well as doubts about how the carbon sequestration capacity of trees can be quantified in reality, existing carbon offsetting/compensation funds have been heavily criticised for investing in tree planting schemes without proper long term management regimes (for example tree replacement if they are lost through storms, fires, etc), particularly in the developing world where long term auditing is difficult. Even the Kyoto Protocol itself (which allows countries to “offset” a certain proportion of tree planting after 1990 against that country’s carbon emissions) has been heavily criticised for encouraging some countries to undertake massive forestry planting schemes (often replacing existing established woodland in the process).
140 5.4 Of less controversy is tree planting specifically for energy crops – such as short rotation coppicing where wood is removed on a regular basis under properly managed regimes to fuel biomass boilers, stoves, district heating projects and CHP schemes. Although energy (usually from fossil fuel derived petrol or diesel) is used in machinery to cut the wood and for transportation, the actual carbon locked up in the harvested wood balances out the carbon released when the wood is burnt, so is therefore a legitimate form of renewable energy. Also, tree thinnings, etc from the proper maintenance of existing woods and forests can also be used in this way as a renewable energy source, as well as enhancing the carbon storage of existing trees by proper management.
5.5 The other positive factor about growing trees is that timber and wood products balance carbon dioxide emissions in other ways, Such wood and other vegetation based products (like hemp) can often be used to substitute for more damaging products such as those normally used in the construction industry. Of course, tree planting has much more benefit than just as a theoretical or actual combatant to climate change gases like carbon dioxide. Trees and woodland have great amenity value and contribute positively to the well being of the local communities in which they are sited. Thus, tree planting as a whole is a positive process provided adequate long-term effective management regimes is put in place.
5.6 Unlike the growth of energy crops for biomass boilers and the like, growing crops specifically for the biofuel (biodiesel/ethanol) market is also heavily criticised. This is because vast tracts of land formerly given over to food crops are now being used (or are planned to be used) in order to produce cellulose or oil based materials (e.g. corn, palm oil, etc) for ethanol or biodiesel production and there will never be enough land available for such crops to meet the UK transport needs anyway. Ethanol can be produced by fermenting cellulose material and so can be produced from waste vegetable matter (a process first promoted by Henry Ford himself in the early 20th century before vested interests in the oil/petroleum industry held sway in the USA). Biodiesel can also be made from waste cooking oil and fat and so there is no justification for schemes that grow crops specifically for making liquid fuels.
Recommendation 5.1
That the Council does not invest in any tree planting schemes (unless part of an energy crop system for biomass) as a way of compensating for its carbon dioxide emissions because of a. the uncertainties around accurate quantification of carbon sequestration capacities and b. public suspicions aroused by high profile errors made by existing carbon offsetting/compensation schemes.
141 Recommendation 5.2
That the Council does not attempt to estimate the potential carbon dioxide sequestration of existing vegetation/trees on its land as part of its Going Carbon Neutral by 2012 process in view of the many uncertainties involved in estimating such sequestration and the fact that such capacity is unlikely to change over the next 5 years as we approach 2012.
Recommendation 5.3
That the Council, as part of its Sustainable Procurement and Project Management processes uses timber and vegetative based products from sustainably managed schemes to substitute, where appropriate, for more environmentally damaging (mainly construction) products.
Recommendation 5.4
That the Council only considers investing in energy crop schemes designed to produce biomass and not biofuels. However, the Council should invest, where appropriate, in schemes producing biofuels, such as biodiesel and ethanol, from waste products.
6. Existing carbon compensation/offsetting funds and projects in the marketplace – effectiveness and costs
6.1 As illustrated in some of the points above, existing carbon offsetting and compensation (as well as carbon trading) schemes have come under heavy criticism for many different reasons and public confidence in such schemes has fallen. Conversely, in spite of such criticism, the market is growing rapidly as more individuals and organisations try to reduce their “carbon footprint” in recognition and growing awareness of the dangers of climate change. Also international agreements to limit greenhouse gases (but carbon dioxide in particular) are relying more and more on carbon trading schemes.
6.2 Partially to allay public concerns about carbon offsetting/compensation schemes but also to clarify their interface with carbon trading schemes, the UK government recently published a consultation document called “Consultation on establishing a voluntary code of best practice for the provision of UK customers”. This Council did not submit its own comments to this consultation but did so as a member of the Executive Committee of the South East Climate Change Partnership. In essence, the government favours a regulated but voluntary code of practice in order to verify that carbon claimed to have been offset is genuinely quantifiable and auditable and has not been “double counted” (more of that below) by more than one carbon offsetting or carbon trading scheme. By having verifiable “carbon credits”, the government argues, the public confidence in such schemes will be enhanced. However, by too much regulation (even if voluntary),
142 innovative carbon compensation schemes (such as the one proposed for this Council in 7. below) could be discouraged and this was one of the points made by the SECCP comments on the consultation document.
6.3 Most existing carbon offsetting/compensation funds in the UK invest in energy efficiency, sustainable/renewable energy projects and tree planting schemes in the developing world. The main justification for this concentration on these types of project is 4 fold -
¾ projects in the developing world can have wider and social benefits for the impoverished local community than just the carbon saving elements
¾ projects based in the developing world benefit the very communities that are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change
¾ the costs per tonne of carbon dioxide saved are much less in the developing world so the money goes further
¾ such projects are unlikely to be funded from other sources thereby avoiding potential double counting of the “same” parcel of carbon dioxide saving by several different funders.
However, the nature of such projects makes long term management from half way round the world difficult, particularly in the case of tree planting and carbon audit trails are equally problematical. Also, some high profile projects have also been criticised for substituting fossil fuel powered machinery with “human powered” equipment, likening this to the dreaded prison treadmills of the past.
6.4 Another general criticism of carbon compensation/off setting schemes is that it lets guilty consumers of the hook by allowing them to carry on with carbon dioxide generating lifestyles with a clear conscience. Such critics say that the schemes deflect from the more important issue - that of ensuring that people adopt a more climate friendly lifestyle in the first place. More pragmatic environmentalists point out that, even if one makes strenuous efforts to reduce personal carbon dioxide emissions, there will still be genuinely unavoidable carbon dioxide emissions in a developed society such as the UK.
6.5 The range of costs to offset customers, per tonne of carbon dioxide saved, varies between UK run schemes. As an indicative example, the leading “brand” Climate Care, otherwise known as CO2Balance.com, charges around £9 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
6.6. However, as was noted in para 6.3, the reasons that many offsetting companies can offer such a “cheap” deal is that they are investing in projects based in the developing world. The real cost (financial, environmental and social) of each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted is rather different to the cost per tonne
143 charged by the likes of Climate Care. In the recent Stern Review commissioned by the Treasury, it was stated that each tonne of carbon dioxide is causing damage of around $US85 (i.e. around £42). The latest guide from DEFRA on the social cost of carbon recommends that there be a shadow cost of carbon dioxide (rather than a social cost of carbon) and has produced new guidance to this effect. However, various reports commissioned by DEFRA seem to acknowledge that no single monetary value of the shadow cost of carbon dioxide can be estimated with confidence! The range currently appears to be around £10 to £38 with £19 per tonne of carbon dioxide “suggested”. What is acknowledged is what the social or shadow price of carbon is not - i.e. it is not the market price of carbon (as traded through the likes of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme) and it is not the marginal abatement cost, which reflects the cost of reducing emissions.
6.7. Typical “carbon abatement costs” have already been given in the tables in Section 4 and show a range of £13 per tonne of carbon dioxide saved for loft insulation to £1100 for the most expensive photovoltaic panels. This illustrates yet again that energy efficiency projects, rather than renewable energy projects are more cost effective in terms of carbon dioxide saved per £1 investment.
6.8 Given the Stern Review’s assessment of the cost per tonne of carbon dioxide to society (£42), the shadow cost of carbon dioxide (around £19) and the renewables range from £30 to £1100, the Council would be hard pressed to set a budget ahead of time for carbon dioxide saving projects. Not only that, if it were to offer a local carbon compensation fund (to local people, organisations and developers), what amount would the Council require per tonne of Carbon Dioxide? This is further discussed in the next section.
Recommendation 6.1
That the Council sets a budget for any carbon dioxide saving projects once the amount of carbon dioxide to be compensated is more clearly known but in any event by the end of the financial year 2010/11. However, the CCPB must continue to review budgetary provision for both carbon compensation and carbon dioxide reduction projects as part of its ongoing work.
7. Local Carbon Compensation (offsetting) and its potential role in the local Planning process and the influence on others
7.1 It has already been accepted in principle by Cabinet and the CCPB that the Council will set up a local carbon (dioxide) compensation fund (CCF). Into this fund, developers (who could not for some reason meet required carbon dioxide savings on site or by their own carbon compensation project off site) and the local community could invest to offset their carbon dioxide emissions. Such a fund would be used for carbon dioxide saving projects that benefit the local
144 community, thereby increasing local ownership and raising awareness of the issues more effectively.
7.2 However, such projects must demonstrate that they would not otherwise have happened without the help of the CCF and should not receive funding from any other source that may also claim the carbon dioxide savings accrued. This is to avoid any “double counting” and to ensure genuine carbon dioxide savings have occurred. So, for example, the Council’s CCF could not be used for projects that had also received funding from the Low Carbon Buildings Programme or from one of the Energy Suppliers, since these would be also claiming the same package of carbon dioxide savings. If a project involved the generation of electricity from a renewable source and some was exported to the grid, the Council would similarly have to ensure that it (and not the energy supplier) was credited with the carbon dioxide savings created.
7.3 With regard to the funding of the Council’s own carbon dioxide compensation projects, it could invest in the CCF on, for example, a £ per tonne basis (at a rate that will have to be agreed in the future). Alternatively, the Council could directly invest in a particular project that would yield the required carbon dioxide savings and meet the required financial costs from CIP or other funds.
7.4. There does not appear to be any models for such a local Council administered CCF and this Council would be in new territory. The legal and financial implications will need to be studied carefully and separate recommendations made to the CCPB and Cabinet. However, the process by which Section 106 agreements are currently used to obtain Developers’ Contributions could also be used to obtain carbon dioxide compensation credits on sites where it is genuinely impossible for the developer to achieve required carbon dioxide emission levels (e.g for zero carbon homes).
Recommendation 7.1
That a small working group be set up with appropriate legal, financial and audit expertise to examine the implications of creating a local CCF and to offer recommendations to the CCPB (and to Cabinet) on how this should be administered in the longer term. In particular, the working group should recommend how the amount of £ per tonne of carbon dioxide saved should be calculated for investment into the CCF.
Recommendation 7.2
That Planning Policy and Development Control work together to examine how to best incorporate plans for a local CCF into Section 106 agreements and any relevant supplementary planning guidance.
145 Recommendation 7.3
That the CCPB reviews any proposed carbon dioxide saving projects carefully to ensure that genuine savings will accrue and that any double counting of carbon dioxide is avoided.
Recommendation 7.4
That the Council e.g. through the Viewpoint Survey, gauges how a local CCF may be viewed by the local community and the likely investment into such a fund.
8. Financial Implications
The Financial implications of adopting this Policy and the recommendations therein are unknown at this stage but will be considered in detail by the CCPB and informed by work of the small working group recommended at 7.1. However, any projects authorised by the CCPB as part of the Carbon Compensation Fund, as well as the fund itself will be subject to normal budgetary processes.
9. Risk Assessment
Any projects authorised by the CCPB as part of the CCF and the setting up of the fund itself, will be subject to risk assessment and management procedures. Failure to set up an effective Carbon Compensation Fund by the beginning of the financial year 2010/11 will put at risk the Council’s objective of being carbon neutral for its key activities by July 2012.
10. Conclusions
This Policy Paper outlines the way that the Council should manage the carbon compensation side of achieving carbon neutrality by 2012 and makes a number of recommendations that have already been accepted by the Climate Change Programme Board. The CCPB asks that the Cabinet, following an opportunity for the Environment and Transport Scrutiny Panel to add their comments, to adopt the Policy Paper together with the recommendations.
BEVERLEY DRAIG Sustainability Policy Coordinator (on behalf of the Climate Change Programme Board)
Civic Offices Date: 26 October 2007 Leigh Road Contact Officer: Beverley Draig Eastleigh Tel No: 023 8068 8085 Hampshire e-mail: [email protected] SO50 9YN
146 EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT SCRUTINY PANEL, 15 NOVEMBER 2007:
ADOPTION OF CARBON COMPENSATION POLICY PAPER AS PART OF GOING CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2012
Consideration was given to a report of the Sustainability Policy Co-ordinator which contained a Policy Paper outlining the main carbon compensation issues for the Council in aiming to become carbon neutral by 2012. The Council planned to achieve this by balancing its carbon dioxide emissions from key business activities with carbon dioxide saving projects that equalised or more than compensated for such emissions and the Paper concentrated on how this could be carried out.
The Paper discussed the following issues:-
• Carbon dioxide emitting key activities not being counted under the Going Carbon Neutral by 2012 process • Methodologies and sources for estimating carbon dioxide emissions/carbon sequestration capacities • Current relative financial costs per tonne of carbon dioxide saved by various energy efficiency and sustainable/renewable energy technologies • Using trees and other vegetation to sequester (store) carbon or produce biofuels as a means to compensate for carbon dioxide emissions • Existing carbon compensation/offsetting funds and projects in the marketplace – effectiveness and costs • Local Carbon Compensation (offsetting) and its potential role in the local Planning process and the influence on others
The Climate Change Programme Board (CCPB) was directing the work required and had already discussed the Policy Paper and agreed the recommendations it contained. The CCPB now wished the Paper to be formally adopted by Cabinet as Council policy following consideration by this Panel.
The Sustainability Policy Co-ordinator reported that, further to comments received from consultees, it was proposed that the reference to the Project Board in Recommendation 2.1 should be changed to Programme Board and that Recommendation 3.1 should be deleted.
During discussion of the report, Panel members queried whether Council vehicles would be using biodiesel in future. It was confirmed that they were already using fuel with 5% biodiesel and that work was taking place on blending fuels to increase this percentage. In addition, both driver training and more efficient routing systems were being investigated.
It was AGREED that it be recommended to Cabinet –
147 That the Carbon Compensation Policy Paper be approved, subject to (a) reference to the Project Board in recommendation 2.1 being changed to Programme Board and (b) the deletion of Recommendation 3.1.
148 Agenda Item 13
CABINET
10 December 2007
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES PROGRESS UPDATE
Report of the Organisational Development Manager on behalf of Management Team
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Cabinet considers any actions needed.
Summary
This report outlines progress against the Council’s strategic priorities
Statutory Powers: Local Government Act 2000
Introduction
1. This report forms the regular six monthly reporting to Cabinet by management team of progress against the Council’s strategic priorities.
Status of New Strategic Priorities
2. At the moment the Council is in a transition period with new strategic priorities agreed by Cabinet in June 2007 although these do not properly come into effect until April 2008. However the delivery plans for these new priorities were well enough advanced to feed into the Council’s 2008/9 Budget process and also influence the unit business planning process. In addition to this report there will be one further progress report against the priorities agreed in 2005/6.
Reporting progress against strategic priorities
3. The strategic priorities progress report in June 2007 went into some depth attempting to review not just progress against actions but to use published data to explore whether progress had also been made towards the desired outcomes. Coming on the back of that analysis this report isn’t intended to be
D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\9\0\AI00018093\StrategicPrioritiesProgressUpdateReport0.doc1 149 so deep and looks primarily at progress against actions between April and September 2007.
Performance for April - September 2007
4. Appendix 1 gives a detailed report against the strategic priorities and uses weather symbols to show where progress has slipped. (Sun = on or better than target, Clouds/sun = some delay worth watching, Thunderstorms = a problem /well behind target.)
5. The remainder of the body of this report summarises the main points of progress against on each strategic priority between April and September.
Strategic Priorities
Helping those in need
5. Progress was made in projects designed to improve telephony and other customer contacts. Arrangements for improvements in Direct Services and Environmental Health have been developed and work is underway at both the Depot and the North site.
6. During the summer the Compass Programme was integrated with the Information Communications Technology (ICT) Strategy and Customer Access Strategy.
7. Figures for planning permissions on qualifying sites showed that during 2006/7 the amount of affordable housing included was 37.5%
8. A new bond scheme was introduced at the beginning of the financial year to replace cash rent deposits in order to continue to support the Council’s access to housing aim.
Encouraging a healthy lifestyle
9. Smoking – no smoking signage obtained and displayed on all Council premises. Signage also made available for local businesses. Enforcement notices ready for hotspots.
10. Alcohol and Drugs - Parents and children at Wyvern School completed questionnaires as baseline information for Start Tackling Alcohol Responsibly project. All schools bar one are in Eastleigh are engaged with Enhanced Healthy Schools Scheme. RUBothered youth drugs and alcohol continues to receive referrals and exceed DAAT targets.
11. Sports and Recreation – wide range of activities undertaken during the summer to promote health through participation in sport. These include Hampshire Games; the Mini Games and the Youth Games. Fleming Park's programme for teenagers was expanded to include Friday evening teen workout sessions in the gym. Park Sport was again a success this summer.
150 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\9\0\AI00018093\StrategicPrioritiesProgressUpdateReport0.doc2 The one cloud was that no progress as yet was made on the parks and green spaces strategy.
12. Cultural Activities - Kipling project rolling out early due to incredible take up from hard to reach groups. Pilot project for Point Ed successfully completed all schools are now working with the Council on the extended 3 year programme. Youth day at the Eastleigh Music Festival saw 20 youth bands participating. Outreach and Education projects for the borough likely to be around 200 for 2007/08
Promoting a quality environment
13. Street Waste Bins – assessment found that the costs of the bins piloted outweighs the benefits because we do not have many areas with significant footfall. Not able to convince Railtrack to accept bins near stations.
14. Kitchen Waste - Stage 2 pilot started in May adding a further 1,000 properties in Bishopstoke. Plans being developed for roll-out to Chandlers Ford & Hiltingbury by February 2008. Discussions with Hampshire County Council (HCC)on disposal options held.
15. Community Waste Action Project - Mapping of socio-demographics of borough undertaken to target areas of maximum potential impact for the next stage of this work.
16. Street Cleaning - Approval given for recruitment of Enforcement Officer. Adoption of powers to use fixed penalty notices under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act.
Prosperous and safe communities
17. E Business - workshop held in June, training around 40 businesses in website and e-trading.
18. Southern Entrepreneurs - The 2007 year's extension is progressing well. To date 199 entrepreneurs have joined (target 300) and 12 training courses have been held (target 50).
19. Electronic Small Business Account - New business data has been purchased and cleaned and provided to the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. New codes to fit the Governments categories have been established and layouts for reports finalised. Latest Yell data updated into CRM for live use 31/10/2007
20. Community and disorder strategy – three year overall Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy target unlikely to be met. Although dwelling burglary target almost certainly will be met. CDRP Control Strategy is concentrating on achieving reductions in violent crime, theft from motor vehicles, criminal damage and theft of pedal cycles.
D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\9\0\AI00018093\StrategicPrioritiesProgressUpdateReport0.doc3 151 21. Reducing alcohol nuisance - This initiative continues to develop with initial projects such as parental involvement, Friday Night Sport, Skateboard facility, PSHE curriculum being broadened and further developed.
Promoting sustainability through our planning
22. Transport - Significant growth point funding for improved public transport infrastructure in the Hedge End area approved for implementation early next year.
23. School travel plans (STPs) - Netley Infant & junior, St Swithun Wells, Chandler's Ford Infant and Cherbourg Primary achieved HCC approved travel plans. 93% of all schools in the Borough now have STPs.
24. Local area agreement (LAA) - Development of a new LAA (for July 2008) has led to whole new series of officer and Local Strategic Partnership meetings. In Eastleigh this is also leading to a review of Eastleigh Strategic Partnership structure.
Value for money
25. Business processes - CRM in currently being used in Economic Development and Environmental Health services. Direct Services development went live on31/10/2007. Electronic Document Records Management Project now in development of tender stage due November 2007. The Council is the leading user of Management Reporting Development in all 120+ Lagan user sites. Customer Access Strategy agreed and action plan to be implemented from January 2008 in line with ICT strategy.
26. Performance Reporting - Discussion held on combining financial and performance management reporting. First step to synchronise reporting - November reporting cycle.
27. HR Recruitment - Recruitment portal currently being implemented and due to be up and running early December 2007. Advertising expenditure continues to be low since changes to advertising placements were made last year - there is no identifiable drop in the quality and number of applicants as a result.
28. HR Learning & Development - Currently reviewing Induction Programme and process / Management Development / H&S training needs / IT training needs / training information held on central Workforce system.
29. Resources IT - Visioning workshop held with members. Start of new Head of Customer Service and ICT has led to work on formulating vision on ICT.
30. Conclusion
31. Progress on the strategic priorities continues to be favourable, and builds upon the achievements noted in the June Cabinet report.
152 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\9\0\AI00018093\StrategicPrioritiesProgressUpdateReport0.doc4 32. There is one more progress report on the 2005/6 cycle of strategic priorities. Subsequent to which the reporting style on progress on strategic priorities will change with the focus being on the delivery plans for each of the three new priorities.
33. By viewing the appendix, Members can come to their own conclusions on how well the Council is performing. Management Team’s view is that the Council is generally performing well, with good progress taking place towards meeting the current strategic priorities.
VINCE JOHNSTON PERFORMANCE & DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 26 November 2007 Contact Officer: Vince Johnston Tel No: 023 8068 8077 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 1 *Report No
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
None
D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\9\0\AI00018093\StrategicPrioritiesProgressUpdateReport0.doc5 153 This page is intentionally left blank
154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 This page is intentionally left blank
168 Agenda Item 16
RESOURCES SCRUTINY PANEL
Thursday 6 December 2007
CABINET
Monday 10 December 2007
FEES AND CHARGES 2008/09
Report of the Corporate Director (CFO) and Head of Financial Services
RECOMMENDATIONS
Resources Scrutiny Panel
It is recommended that the Resources Scrutiny Panel consider the Fees and Charges proposals for 2008/09 and make any recommendations for amendments to the Cabinet for their consideration.
Cabinet
It is recommended that the Cabinet recommend to Council the following proposals in the light of the comments of the Resources Scrutiny Panel and;
(1) approve car park charges, as detailed in Appendix A to this report, to commence from 31 March 2008;
(2) approve residents parking permit charges, subject to consultation, as detailed in Appendix A to this report for permit renewals that commence from the 1 December 2008 or as soon as practicable for temporary visitors permit charges;
(3) approve the higher rate penalty charge notice as detailed in Appendix A subject to the implementation of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004;
(4) approve the scale of proposed charges as detailed in paragraphs 29-35 for the pay-on-foot car parking scheme;
(5) approve that the maximum length of stay for the on-street charges in Market Street and Leigh Road be increased from 30 minutes to 60 minutes as detailed in paragraphs 36-38 and Appendix A of this report;
(6) approve the increase in the charge for Meals on Wheels from £2.50 to £2.60 with effect from 31st March 2008 and note that this will require
fs278 1 169 additional revenue budget growth of £8,000 for 2008/09;
(7) approve the principle of the introduction of charges for customers who use credit cards to pay for services provided by the Council and request that the Head of Financial Services look at the practical implications of the introduction of charges in all service areas;
(8) recommend to Council the annual Fees and Charges report as part of the Budget preparation process and
(9) approve all other charges in Appendices B to G to come into effect on the 1 April 2008.
Purpose
This Fees and Charges report is produced as part of the annual Budget process. The purpose of this process is to ensure that all fees and charges levied by the Council are reviewed on an annual basis. The Council then has access to a schedule of all fees and charges in one document. Statutory Power Section 151 of the 1972 Local Government Act Introduction
1. The purpose of this report is to examine fully the effects of income received by the Council with regard to fees and charges levied for services. In setting the Budget Guidelines on 6 September 2007, the Cabinet has already approved, in accordance with the Medium Term Budget Strategy, a minimum increase in yield of 4.5% for all fees and charges.
2. However, Service Managers are also invited to consider their fees and charges in the context of service development in addition to recognising the Council’s policy to generate additional funds by way of maximising the yield from all income sources.
3. In line with the approach made in previous years, the fees and charges are presented in one consolidated report to ensure an efficient and co-ordinated approach to income charging. This process assists budget setting and enables one document to be produced that contains all the fees and charges made by the Council. Once approved it is the intention to publish a comprehensive list of all the fees and charges on the Council’s website.
4. It is estimated that a 4.5% increase on the total estimate for 2008/09 will raise in excess of £200,000 in the coming year, assuming that the demand for services is relatively inelastic.
5. There are other fees and charges within the Council’s Budget which do not respond directly to an inflationary increase of 4.5%. These tariffs are mainly grants or contained by longer term contracts regarding their income and therefore cannot be increased to raise further income.
170 fs278 2
Major Areas of Income Generation
6. There are a number of services that are worthy of particular consideration, primarily because of the scale and/or complexity of the income involved. These services are listed below with their respective appendix references.
Appendix Description A Car Park Charges B Fleming Park Leisure Centre C The Point D Itchen Valley Country Park (including Lakeside) E Outdoor Sports Facilities F Cemeteries G All other fees and charges
Car Park Charges
7. The proposed Car Park charges with effect from 31 March 2008 are set out in Appendix A.
8. In 1999, a strategy for setting car parking charges was agreed as part of the Best Value Review process, namely:
a. To operate and maintain the car parking service to ensure a strong and viable Town Centre via a structured charging policy that conforms to the Borough Council’s Transport Policy.
b. To provide a car parking service which provides good value for money, service by innovation, investment and staff development opportunities.
c. The car parking service is to continually review the levels of crime within all of its car parks and work in conjunction with the Police Crime Reduction Officer to further reduce crime levels and the fear of crime.
9. The previous strategy has been successful in increasing the annual income level of car parking to over £1.5 million while also deterring long stay users by increasing charges over the last 9 years from the all day charge level in 1997/1998 of £1.80 to the current level of charge for 2007/08 of £6.50.
10. Another key objective is to ensure that the Town Centre still competes with the neighbouring towns and out of town shopping centres and therefore due consideration must be given to the level of charges, particularly for the short term user.
Car Park Usage
11. The vehicle usage has been compared over the last two years and is listed below.
3 171
Car Park Usage 2006-07 2005-06 Change on % change on between years 2005-06 2005-06 All Day 24,273 23,929 +344 +1.44 4 Hours 35,654 34,938 +716 +2.05 3 Hours 71,310 90,312 -19,002 -21.04 2 Hours 396,652 382,635 +14017 +3.66 1 Hour 424,123 421,969 +2154 +0.51
12. The results confirm that there has been a relatively small increase in usage in 1, 2, 4 hour and all day parking which is an indication that usage in the town has still remained fairly static over this period.
13. The 3 hour tariff has shown a drop and was mainly from the Swan Centre roof top car park. In total the Swan Centre has shown a significant drop in usage against the previous year with the total reduction of 64,354 vehicle ticket purchases against the previous year.
14. This reduction has been compensated for by the new Hanns Way car park and the other short-stay car parks within the town.
15. There have been significant changes in vehicle usage and parking habits within the Town Centre, due to the closure of the Wells Place car park, as from 9 July 2007 and the change in entry/exit points to the Swan Centre.
16. The early indications are that 19% of motorists who formerly used the Town Centre pay and display car parks are no longer doing so since the redevelopment work has started.
17. It is hoped that this figure will improve due to the approaching Christmas trading period although it is difficult to give any accurate assumptions at this present time.
Comparisons with Other Town Centres
18. As with previous years the current charges have been compared with other neighbouring authorities’ car parking charges.
Council 1 2 3 4 All Quarterly Excess Discount Hour Hour Hour Hour Day Permit Charge Amount
Eastleigh 60p £1.30 £2.20 £3.00 £6.50 £260 £60 £30 Andover 60p £1.10 £1.70 £2.20 £5.00 £160 £60 £30 Fareham £1.00 £2.00 £3.00 £4.00 £10.00 £146 £60 £30 Southampton £1.00 £2.00 £2.50 £3.60 £7.00 £600 £60 £30
172 4
Winchester 90p £1.70 £2.40 £3.40 £6.50 £325 £60 £30
19. Comparisons confirm that, as in previous years, Andover have the lowest short and long-term parking charges followed by Eastleigh.
20. It should be noted that the 1 and 2 hour charges in Fareham, Southampton and Winchester are now significantly higher (by between 36 % and 40%) than the one hour charge in Eastleigh.
21. Eastleigh has always tried to maintain lower levels of short term parking charges to encourage visitors to our Town Centres and to remain competitive with other shopping facilities. However, it should be noted that the gap in charges between the Council and our three neighbouring authorities has now increased to a significant level.
22. The current level of penalty charge notices is the same in all five local authorities.
Penalty Charge Notices
23. The current parking enforcement service in Eastleigh is provided in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991. The Traffic Management Act 2004 will replace the relevant sections of the 1991 Act relating to parking enforcement when it is enabled on 31st March 2008. There are a number of changes but one particular change in respect of new charging levels for penalty charge notices will affect our levels of income.
24. The current level of charge for all contraventions is £60 (reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days). There are two new band levels of penalty charge notices to choose from as listed below. In each band there are two levels of charge depending on the seriousness of the contravention.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Band Higher level Lower level Higher level Lower level High level Lower level penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty charge charge charge paid charge paid charge paid charge paid early early after service after service of charge of charge certificate certificate 1. £60 £40 £30 £20 £90 £60 2. £70 £50 £35 £25 £105 £75
25. The Government has introduced a two tier charge to make the issuing of penalty charge notices fairer and to give more weight to more serious contraventions. In simple terms all yellow lines, disabled, loading and bus bay contraventions are at the higher rate and all contraventions where motorists are not displaying valid tickets, permits and resident’s permits are at the lower rate. As to be expected most of the income is currently generated from the lower rate contraventions. Legislation states which are the more
5 173
serious contraventions and which are less serious, the Council cannot decide this.
26. A number of local authorities have been contacted and all confirm that they are minded to select the higher rate of penalty charge notices. The Council must implement one of these charge levels and it does not have any further discretion in this matter.
27. The new levels of penalty charge notices have been costed to estimate income at the new discount rates for the next financial year as follows:
Forecast Budget Forecast Budget 2008/09 2007/08
On-Street BAND ONE £245,000 BAND TWO £260,000 £260,000
Off-Street BAND ONE £ 97,000 BAND TWO £117,000 £140,000
28. In view of the potential loss of income compared to the forecast budget for 2007/08 and to be consistent with neighbouring authorities it is recommended that the higher rate band for penalty charge notices be adopted for both on- street and off-street parking.
Pay on Foot
29. As part of the new multiplex development the Council has been able to secure a developer contribution for the installation of a new pay on foot parking system for the Swan Centre. This is likely to be in operation from November 2008. Currently the Council is undertaking a procurement process for the pay on foot equipment.
30. The charges for pay on foot at the Swan Centre need to reflect similar tariffs as currently operated within the rest of the town to ensure consistency with other car parks. It should be recognised however that the levels of car parking charges over a 4 hour period should be significantly higher to deter motorists for staying longer than 4 hours, as it is assumed that they will be not be shoppers, but more likely to be office and shop workers. After the core shopping period of 8 am to 6 pm it is suggested that one flat fee is adopted to encourage the car borne visitor to the car park and the leisure complex.
31. The fee suggested after the core shopping period is £2 for any period and to include all day Sunday. This may be considered too low a level, but increasing the fee, particularly at the opening of the new development, could encourage a disproportionate number of visitors to use other parking facilities rather than those available at the new complex.
174 6
32. It is estimated that for a full year at a flat £2 fee for any period after the core time could generate an income of approximately £200,000 net, although this is clearly dependent upon how successful the leisure complex is and usage.
33. Following a similar practice at other neighbouring authorities the pay on foot tariff for over 4 hours should increase to a significant level to deter the long stay users. It is recommended that the 1 to 4 hour tariffs are set at the rate agreed for pay and display car parks as outlined in Appendix A and that the over 4 hour rate is set at £8 and the over 7 hour rate is set at £13.
34. The undercroft car park will still be operated via the pay and display payment system, to ensure consistency with the roof top car park, it is recommended that charges operate Monday to Saturday (maximum stay 4 hours) 8am to 8pm at the same hourly tariff rate which is adopted for the other town centre pay and display car parks.
35. The hours of operation are currently 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday in other car parks. This will be reviewed when the multiplex is opened due to displacement of vehicles and increase in usage, which could lead to an extension of the charging times.
On-Street Town Centre Charges
36. The on-street charges came into effect on 6 March 2006 covering the main Town Centre streets with tariffs at either 30 minutes or 60 minutes. During the last 3 months there has been a rise in usage particularly since Wells Place car park closed and an assumed acceptance by motorists of the charges.
37. The maximum length of stay in the High Street was increased last year from 30 minutes to 60 minutes to assist motorists who wish to park longer. This has proved very popular with both businesses and motorists and therefore it is recommended that all remaining 30 minute maximum stay waiting periods (which apply to Market Street and part of Leigh Road) are also increased to 1 hour maximum.
38. The current 1 hour tariff (60p) is at the same rate as all off-street car parks. To maintain consistency it is recommended that the 1 hour charge is increased as outlined in Appendix A of this report.
Car Parks Charging Proposal for 2008/2009.
39. The original income budget for 2007/08 for Car Parking was £1,562,580. If a 4.5% increase in yield is assumed in accordance with the corporate charging policy the new target for 2008/09 would be £1,632,900, an increase of £70,320 for the year.
40. The proposed car parking charges have been drafted in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and are outlined in Appendix A. Cabinet Members are requested to confirm the proposed charges. The 50p increase in long-stay parking is also in accordance with the Council’s policy of encouraging long-
7 175
stay motorists to use other forms of public transport. The recommended charging option concentrates on the short stay tariffs and also incorporates long stay increases.
41. It should be noted that the proposed short stay tariffs will still be below that of Southampton, Fareham and Winchester Councils.
42. Due to the closure of Wells Place car park and changes to penalty charge notices from March 2008 it is recommended that, on this occasion, the proposed tariffs are set below the corporate charging policy target. It is anticipated that the recommended charges will yield an income of £1,607,800 for the Council, which is approximately £25,100 below the budget target.
Other Car Parking Issues
43. Appendix A also includes the charges for residents, business and professional carers permits. These charges have not been increased for the last two years and Members are asked to endorse a proposed increase as outlined in Appendix A. If changes are agreed they will come into effect at the start of the next permit renewal date which will be on 1 December 2008.
44. There are proposals to introduce charges in The Square car park in Hamble to encourage a greater turnaround of the use of the spaces available. Surveys have shown that the availability of spaces is affected by vehicles parked for long periods, often for several days at a time. The charging proposals for this car park are the subject of a separate report on this agenda. Proposals for charging in The Square car park in Hamble will need to be advertised for public comment and therefore it is unlikely that charging can be introduced before April 2008.
Fleming Park and The Hub (Appendix B)
45. The fees and charges for Fleming Park were presented to the Consultative Group after discussions between DC Leisure and the Council. They reflect the customers’ ability to pay, prevailing market conditions, and the cost of providing the facility and improvements to the facility.
46. Members may recall that some golf charges were either frozen or reduced for this current financial year. It is difficult to analyse the effect of this pricing policy on attendances. Certainly income for these selected charges is less than last year and season tickets have fallen by 13. Casual attendances have increased marginally but income has declined. For 2008/09 we have decided to revert to a more traditional pricing policy.
47. In order to encourage junior participation, a number of junior charges have not been increased by 4.5%.
48. Charges for The Hub and the new outdoor facilities were presented to the Hub’s Consultative meeting on 13 November after discussions between the Capital Youth Club and the Council. Proposals for badminton have been kept
176 8
in line with those for Fleming Park. The charges for the new all weather football pitches are currently cheaper than those at Fleming Park. This is to encourage usage and if successful we may need to consider above inflationary rises for 2009/10 so that there will be parity with Fleming Park.
49. Members should note that discussions were held about the sports hall hire charges. The Capital Youth Club is seeking to generate more income to cover increasing staffing, energy and cleaning costs. These proposals are the maximum that the Club could charge and currently there is only one hirer who pays the full price due to the Youth Club’s concessionary policy for community use.
The Point (Appendix C) and Itchen Valley Country Park & Lakeside Country Park (Appendix D)
50. Charges for The Point and Itchen Valley Country Park are detailed in Appendices C and D.
51. The Head of Arts is currently reviewing a range of income options for The Point in the context of the possibility of the Council applying to ‘opt to tax’ the facility to ensure the partial exemption status for VAT is retained. This exercise is the subject of a separate report to the Cabinet. The report will finalise the charging proposals for the facility and establish a new financial operating target for The Point. It should be noted that the proposed charges in this report may be amended again subject to the work on the VAT issue.
52. A review of charges for water sports activities at Lakeside Country Park is currently being undertaken. This follows a review of Asset Management at the Country Park which has identified a need for significant additional funding to maintain the built facilities. In particular, the current changing rooms and shower rooms and shower cubicles are in poor condition and one of the four changing rooms is currently closed. To fund the increased building maintenance required to keep the facilities in good condition in future it is proposed to significantly increase the charges for water sports as follows:
Commercial Rate - £20 per session (4 hours) plus £1 launch fee per craft;
Concessionary Rate - £10 per session (4 hours) plus £1 launch fee per craft;
53. These increased charges are based on a review of charges for similar water sports facilities in the region. For example;
Chichester Water Sports Centre - £10 to £15 per craft per day SW Lakes Trust - £6 to £10 per craft per day Horseshoe Lake Activities Centre - £17 per day per craft, plus £11 per season lake pass.
54. For comparison, the current charges for Lakeside are shown at Appendix D and are £7 per session – irrespective of the number of craft and users. So, for example whereas under the current system 20 craft for a 4 hour session
9 177
would yield an income of £7, under the revised proposals the charge would be £40 (£20 session fee plus 20 craft at £1 launch fee per craft).
55. The increase in charges has been formally discussed with Eastleigh Local Area Committee and would generate an estimated 300 to 400% increase over current water sports income. However, these charges have yet to be discussed with the Lakeside User Group whose next meeting is not until 7th January 2008. Therefore these proposed charges are subject to consultation with the current users. In putting forward these increased charges, it will be vital that the built facilities are brought up to an acceptable condition, fit for purpose before the new charges are introduced (planned from April 2008). Eastleigh Local Area Committee is currently addressing the funding of this work.
Sports Fields (Appendix E)
56. As part of the Budget Review process, fees and charges have been assessed and the new charging structure reflects the optimum income that can be generated from the facilities.
Cemeteries (Appendix F)
57. Council policy is for Cemetery fees to be set at a level where the service ultimately breaks-even. This is not achievable in one year, but does need to be pursued over the next few years. An overall average percentage charge increase of 13.1% is recommended for 2008/09 to further close the gap between income and expenditure. The exception is the reduction in the charge for plots in the columbarium. There has so far been no take up for this service and the high charge may be suppressing demand, so this charge has been reduced to the same level as that of other local authorities.
Meals On Wheels (Appendix G)
58. The number of Meals on Wheels currently delivered to homes for the elderly, ill and housebound residents within the Borough has fallen from 59,082 to 57,400 over the last year. However, the service is more than just delivering hot meals to residents, as it also provides a lifeline to a number of residents whose only point of contact is when their meals are delivered.
59. The current charge is £2.50 per meal and over previous years the charge for meals has increased in line with corporate charging policy.
60. The current service is very cost effective as all meals are delivered by volunteers 5 days a week. When meals are charged at £2.50, the budgeted deficit is £25,750 per year, which is split evenly between this Council and Hampshire County Council’s Adult Services Department. However, as the number of meals has fallen an increase in accordance with the corporate charging policy to £2.60 will result in a budget deficit of £8,000 after the identification of efficiency savings of £9,000 in the revenue budget. If the Council is minded to make the service break-even at the current subsidy level,
178 10
then the charge would have to increase to a cost of £2.80 per meal. The County Council’s proposed charge for other areas is £2.80 per meal for 2008/09.
61. This increase may however deter residents from having meals delivered to their home which could lead to quality of life issues, would also put further pressure on the budgets and could, over the long term, lead to difficulties in recruitment for volunteers. The recommendation is to increase by 10p to £2.60 per meal and to approve growth of £8,000 in the revenue budget to maintain a similar deficit budget figure for next financial year.
All Other Fees and Charges (Appendix G)
62. Appendix G of this report gives a detailed list of the other fees and charges raised by the Council in the current year and the proposed fees and charges for 2008-09.
63. Hackney Carriage Operators and Private Hire Vehicle Charges are subject to consultation with the trade providers.
64. The Council operates a Trade Waste Collection service for businesses throughout the Borough. With the Domestic collection service disposal costs are met by the Waste Disposal Authority (Hampshire County Council). However with Trade Waste Collection the collector must pay the relevant Landfill charges. Early indications are that these will increase sharply in the next financial year and this cost must be reflected in Trade Waste charges.
65. Owners of Landfill sites have so far only offered indicative charges for 2008/09. The Head of Direct Services is recommending an increase in Trade Waste charges of 8% to cover these increased costs. However should the actual costs be higher it may be necessary for the Council to further review the level of charges.
66. Members should note the changes made to the structure of the Land Charges fees. The Lord Chancellor used to set all of the fees for Land Charges, but the Council can now, apart from in the case of personal searches, charge what it actually costs to provide the Service. Some of the fees which the Lord Chancellor set were below what it cost the Council to provide the service, and therefore the Legal Services Unit have been able to adjust these charges accordingly. The Legal Services Unit is also computerising the service which is costing a substantial amount of money. According to the Guidance on setting the fees, we can recover this money over a number of years, so the fees have had to be adjusted to reflect the Council’s investment in this area.
Credit Card Charges
67. Members are requested to note that charges incurred in respect of payments made for services provided by the Council by credit card are rising due to the popularity of the new telephone and internet payment facilities. Credit card charges are now in excess of £20,000 per year. Members are requested to
11 179
approve, in principle, the introduction of charges to customers who use this method of payment.
68. The Head of Financial Services (HOFS) will establish an officer working group to review the impact of the introduction of charges on individual services and in the context of customer service considerations. The HOFS will report back to Members on the outcome of any proposals recommended by the group.
Further Consultation
69. Although Members are being asked to consider and approve the proposals that are contained within this report, it is not intended that the normal consultation process will be removed. Consultations will therefore continue as usual in the coming weeks with Consultative Committees and Local Area Committees. Any comments that are received through this process will be fed back to Members when the Budget is discussed in January 2008.
70. Where charges that are contained in the appendices to this report relate to services that are devolved to Area Committees the Cabinet is able to recommend a corporate pricing structure for those services. This process does not undermine the ability of the Area Committees, in consultation with service managers, to revise these charges either up or down within the context of their own budgetary limits.
Environmental Taxation
71. Cabinet Members have expressed an interest in investigating the concept of Environmental Taxation and how this might impact on our charges in the future. Any proposals that emerge from this debate will be accommodated in future versions of this report.
Conclusion
72. The Council undertakes an annual review of all fees and charges. Where possible the review reflects the Budget requirement to achieve a 4.5% increase in yield. It is anticipated that this increase will generate in excess of £200,000 of additional income in 2008/09.
73. Where possible fees and charges have been increased from 1 April 2008 onwards.
NICK TUSTIAN MARTIN MURPHY
Corporate Director (CFO) Head of Financial Services
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
180 12
Report No: fs278 Date: 27 November 2007 Contact Officer: Martin Murphy Telephone: 023 8068 8081 E-Mail: [email protected] Appendices: 7
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based, and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report – Nil.
13 181
APPENDIX A
Car Parking Pay and Display for 2008-09 with effect from 31 March 2008
CURRENT CHARGE NEW CHARGE £ INC VAT £ Up to 1 hour 60p 70p Up to 2 hours 1.30 1.50 Up to 3 hours 2.20 2.40 Up to 4 hours 3.00 3.20 All day 6.50 7.00
SOUTHAMPTON ROAD CURRENT CHARGE NEW CHARGE £ INC VAT £ Up to 1 hour 50p 60p Up to 2 hours 1.00 1.10 Up to 3 hours 1.50 1.60 Up to 4 hours 2.10 2.10 All day 4.50 4.50
BISHOPSTOKE RECREATION GROUND New Charge 3 hours free parking and non return with 12 hours Up to 10 hours £3.00 £3.50
HEDGE END STATION CAR PARK New Charge Daily Charge n/a £2.00
PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE CURRENT £60 (reduced sum REVISED £70 & £50 (reduced sum CHARGES of £30 if paid within CHARGE of £35 and £25 if paid 14 days) within 14 days) * subject to commencement of Part 6 o Management Act 2004.
Permit Parking for 2008-09 with effect from 1st December 2008. QUARTERLY CAR PARKING PERMIT CURRENT £260.00 REVISED No change CHARGES CHARGE
RESIDENTS PARKING PERMIT FEES - Business 2008/09 CURRENT CHARGE NEW CHARGE * subject to Public Consultation.
1st Permit £30 £35 2nd Permit £60 £65 3rd Permit £90 £95 4th Permit £120 £125
182 14
RESIDENTS PARKING PERMIT FEES - Resident 2008/09 CURRENT CHARGE NEW CHARGE * subject to public consultation £ £ 1st Permit Free Free 2nd Permit £30 £35 3rd Permit £60 £65 4th Permit n/a n/a
ON-STREET PARKING 2008/09 CURRENT CHARGE NEW CHARGE £ £ Up to 30 minutes 0.30 0.35 Up to 60 minutes 0.60 0.70
Temporary visitors permit £18.00 for 6 days parking to increase to £42.00. It is proposed that this change will be introduced as soon as possible.
It is recommended that the temporary visitor’s permit is increased to this level so that it is the same charge as the town centre car park pay and display.
Coach tariff on Twyford Road increased from £6.50 to £7.00 – the same as all-day parking
15 183
APPENDIX B
Fleming Park Leisure Centre with effect from 1 April 2008
Booking Card 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Partners 19.80 20.70 4.55 Individual 15.00 15.70 4.67 Junior – Renewal 8.50 8.90 4.71 Junior – New Member 10.60 11.10 4.72
Swimming 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Adult 3.25 3.40 4.62 Junior 1.50 1.55 3.33 Child under 5 Free Free 0.00 Weekly adult 8.10 8.50 4.94 Weekly junior 2.90 3.00 3.45 Swim Fun session 1.90 2.00 5.26 Monthly swim – Adult 31.70 33.15 4.57 Monthly swim – Junior 10.70 11.20 4.67 Annual swim – Adult 223.00 233.00 4.48 Family swim – 2 adults and up to 3 children 7.25 7.60 4.83 Swimming pool hire per hour – both pools 80.40 84.00 4.48 Swimming pool hire per hour – main pool 56.25 58.80 4.53 Swimming pool hire per hour – learner pool 29.00 30.30 4.48 Swimming pool hire per hour – one lane 10.70 11.20 4.67
Entrance Fees 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Adult 0 0 n/a Junior 0 0 n/a
Indoor Facilities 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Badminton – peak 8.40 8.80 4.76 Badminton – off peak adult 5.30 5.55 4.72 Badminton – off peak junior 2.15 2.20 2.33 Squash – peak 5.40 5.65 4.63 Squash – off peak adult 3.80 3.95 3.95 Squash – off peak junior 1.60 1.65 3.13 Squash – Squash Club 4.90 5.10 4.08 Half main hall – adult 42.00 43.90 4.52 Half main hall – junior (off peak) 17.50 18.30 4.57 Table tennis – adult 2.20 2.30 4.55 Table tennis – junior 1.00 1.05 5.00 Studio One 32.20 33.65 4.50
184 16
Special Activities 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Garden Room 15.00 15.70 4.67 Five O Club 3.10 3.25 4.84 Crèche 0.90 0.95 5.56
Parent and Child 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Fitness mornings 4.10 4.25 3.66 Tumble Zone – Parent plus one child 2.30 2.40 4.35 Tumble Zone – cost per additional child 0.60 0.65 8.33
Artificial Turf Pitch 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Full pitch – peak adult 58.00 60.60 4.48 Full pitch – peak junior 36.10 37.70 4.43 Full pitch – off peak adult 28.50 29.80 4.56 Full pitch – off peak junior 17.70 18.45 4.24 Half pitch – peak adult 29.80 31.15 4.53 Half pitch – peak junior 22.30 23.30 4.48 Half pitch – off peak adult 20.50 21.45 4.63 Half pitch – off peak junior 9.30 9.70 4.30
All Weather Pitch – per hour 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Peak – adult 28.50 29.80 4.56 Peak – junior 16.45 17.20 4.56 Peak – junior (FA Charterhouse) 13.15 13.75 4.56 Off peak – adult 19.15 20.00 4.44 Off peak – junior 9.30 9.70 4.30 Friday night soccer (EBC) 7.45 7.75 4.03
New Hall 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Hall games (half hall) 42.00 43.90 4.52 Tennis – peak adult 17.60 18.40 4.55 Tennis – peak junior 17.60 18.40 4.55 Tennis – off peak adult 12.10 12.65 4.55 Tennis – off peak junior 8.40 8.75 4.17
Tennis (outdoor per court) 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Peak adult 5.50 5.75 4.55 Peak junior 3.00 3.10 3.33 Off peak adult 4.00 4.20 5.00 Off peak junior 1.65 1.70 3.03
17 185
Netball (outdoor per court) 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ % Peak adult 11.80 12.35 4.66 Peak junior 3.45 3.60 4.35 Off peak adult 4.90 5.10 4.08 Off peak junior 2.05 2.10 2.44
Equipment hire 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Hire charge 1.60 1.70 6.25
School charges 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Swimming per head 1.50 1.55 3.33 Squash per court 3.70 3.85 4.05 Badminton per court 4.85 5.05 4.12 Table tennis per table 1.45 1.50 3.45 Studio One 21.50 22.45 4.42 Artificial pitch per ½ pitch 12.20 12.75 4.51 Tennis (outdoor) per court 3.00 3.10 3.33 Netball (outdoor) per court 4.65 4.85 4.30 AWP (outdoor) per pitch 12.80 13.40 4.69
Centrewide membership 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Joining fee 50.00 50.00 0.00 Joining fee when paid by direct debit 100.00 100.00 0.00 Family 765.00 779.80 1.93 Single 395.00 395.00 0.00
Gym 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Casual gym 6.65 6.80 2.26 Casual health 6.10 6.25 2.46 Casual full 9.20 9.40 2.17 Sunbed 0.95 1.00 5.26
Classes 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ % Step Reebok – off peak 4.00 4.20 5.00 Step Reebok – peak 4.50 4.70 4.44 Aerobics – off peak 4.00 4.20 5.00 Aerobics – peak 4.50 4.70 4.44 Aquacise – off peak 3.45 3.60 4.35 Aquacise – peak 4.15 4.35 4.82
186 18
Cricket 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Pitch with dressing room per half day 48.80 51.00 4.51 Pitch with dressing room per evening 48.80 51.00 4.51 Pitch for children (under 18) ex dressing room 17.50 18.25 4.29
Football 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Pitch – adults 49.70 51.95 4.53 Pitch – children (under 18) with dressing room 19.00 19.85 4.47 Mini soccer pitch (40 minute game) 7.65 7.95 3.92
Bowls 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Singles per session 3.70 3.85 4.05 Woods per hour or part hour 0.90 0.95 5.56 Season ticket (May - Sep) 85.70 89.55 4.49 Season ticket (Oct – April) Scapagreen only 45.60 47.65 4.50 Season ticket (May – Sep) OAP 44.40 46.40 4.50 Season ticket (Oct – April) OAP 23.60 24.65 4.45 Junior rink per person per hour 1.80 1.85 2.78 Season ticket junior (May – Sep) 20.70 21.60 4.35
Fleming Park Golf Course – Casual 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % 9 holes weekday 8.50 8.90 4.71 9 holes weekday (junior) 3.60 3.75 4.17 18 holes weekday 14.00 14.65 4.64 18 holes weekday (junior) 5.00 5.20 4.00 9 holes weekends and public holidays 10.00 10.45 4.50 9 holes weekends and public holidays (junior) 5.00 5.20 4.00 18 holes weekends and public holidays 16.00 16.70 4.38 18 holes weekends and public holidays 7.50 7.80 4.00 (junior) Parent and child weekday 10.50 11.00 4.76 Parent and child weekend 12.50 13.05 4.40
Annual Season Tickets 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % 7 day adult 395.00 412.80 4.51 7 day junior 70.00 73.00 4.29 5 day adult 255.00 266.50 4.51 Passport To Leisure (5 day) 199.00 207.95 4.50 1 adult and 2 children 466.00 487.00 4.51 2 adults and 2 children 775.00 809.90 4.50 Club rate for 7 day annual ticket 380.00 397.10 4.50
19 187
The Hub & Surrounding Facilities with effect from 1 April 2008
2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ %
Tennis – Per Hour – Adult 5.20 5.40 3.85 Tennis – Per Hour – Junior 2.60 2.70 3.85 Badminton – Per Court per Hour – Adults 8.30 8.80 6.02 – Peak Badminton – Per Court per Hour – Adults 5.20 5.50 5.77 - Off-peak Badminton – Per Court per Hour – 8.30 8.80 6.02 Juniors – Peak Badminton – Per Court per Hour – 2.10 2.20 4.76 Juniors – Off-Peak Equipment Hire – Adult Racquets 1.50 1.50 0.00 Equipment Hire – Junior Racquets 1.00 1.00 0.00 Shuttlecocks – Per Tube 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sports Hall Hire – Peak – Per Hour 25.00 27.50 10.00 Sports Hall Hire – Off-Peak – Per Hour 20.00 22.00 10.00 Studio Hire – Per Hour 19.00 20.00 5.26 Table Tennis 55mins Peak Adult & -3.00NEW Junior Table Tennis Junior Off Peak - 2.00 NEW AWP Football – Full Pitch Adult Peak - 38.00 NEW AWP Football – Full Pitch Junior Peak - 30.00 NEW AWP Football – Full Pitch Adult Off Peak - 21.00 NEW AWP Football – Full Pitch Junior Off - 16.00 NEW Peak AWP Football – Half Pitch Adult Peak - 19.00 NEW AWP Football – Full Pitch Junior Peak - 15.00 NEW AWP Football – Half Pitch Adult Off Peak - 10.50 NEW
AWP Football – Half Pitch Junior Off -8.00NEW Peak
Charges relating to Bishopstoke Playing Fields are as proposed by Direct Services - See Appendix E.
188 20
APPENDIX C
The Point Theatre and Meeting Rooms
Main Hall – all charges 2007-08 2008-09 Change are per hour or part hour £ £ % COMMERCIAL Commercial Commercial Monday – Thursday 9am – 40.00 42.00 5.00 5pm (min 3 hours) Monday – Thursday 5pm – 62.00 65.00 4.84 midnight Friday – Sunday 9am – 50.00 52.00 4.00 5pm Friday – Sunday 5pm – 72.00 75.00 4.17 midnight Monday – Thursday 9am – 663.00 693.00 4.52 midnight per day Friday – Sunday 9am – 704.00 736.00 4.55 midnight per day Weekly hire rate – midday 4,230.00 4,420.00 4.49 on 1st day to midnight on 7th day Midnight – 2am 127.00 132.70 4.49
Main Hall – all charges 2007-08 2008-09 Change are per hour or part hour £ £ % COMMUNITY Community Community Monday – Thursday 9am – 32.00 33.00 3.13 5pm (min 3 hours) Monday – Thursday 5pm – 50.00 52.00 4.00 midnight Friday – Sunday 9am – 40.00 42.00 5.00 5pm Friday – Sunday 5pm – 58.00 61.00 5.17 midnight Monday – Thursday 9am – 530.00 554.00 4.53 midnight per day Friday – Sunday 9am – 564.00 589.00 4.43 midnight per day Weekly hire rate – midday 3,385.00 3,537.00 4.49 on 1st day to midnight on 7th day Midnight – 2am 102.00 106.60 4.51
21 189
Dance Studio – all charges 2007-08 2008-09 Change are per hour or part hour £ £ % COMMERCIAL Commercial Commercial Per hour 27.00 28.00 3.70 Per hour (Series Booking) 26.00 27.00 3.85 Per 3 hour session 58.00 61.00 5.17 All day session 10am – 5pm 104.00 109.00 4.81
Dance Studio – all charges 2007-08 2008-09 Change are per hour or part hour £ £ % COMMUNITY Community Community Per hour 21.50 22.00 2.33 Per hour (Series Booking) 20.50 21.00 2.44 Per 3 hour session 47.00 49.00 4.26 All day session 10am – 5pm 83.00 87.00 4.82
Meeting Rooms - Hourly 2007-08 2008-09 Change Rate - Community £ £ % Irvine & Wilde Room 12.00 12.50 4.17 Pillar Room 13.00 14.00 7.69 Practice Room 8.00 8.00 0.00 Pillar Room with Practice 15.50 16.00 3.23 Room Conference Suite 17.00 18.00 5.88
Meeting Rooms – Hourly 2007-08 2008-09 Change Rate - Commercial £ £ % Irvine & Wilde Room 15.00 16.00 6.67 Pillar Room 16.00 17.00 6.25 Practice Room 10.50 11.00 4.76 Pillar Room with Practice 21.00 22.00 4.76 Room Conference Suite 21.00 22.00 4.76
Studio Series Classes Minimum booking of 10 sessions. Studio booking charges include PRS cover for the use of recorded music in classes and the inclusion of a class in The Point’s promotional brochure.
Deposit A non-returnable deposit of 10% of the total hire charge is payable at the time of booking.
Cancellations
8 months notice 25% 6 months notice 50% Less than 6 months notice Full charge
190 22
APPENDIX D
Countryside Service Fees and Charges with effect from 1 April 2008
Itchen Valley Country Park 2007-08 2008-09 Change Use of Bridle Route (Private) £ £ % - Per horse 31.00 32.50 4.84 - Additional animals 12.00 12.50 4.17 Use of Bridle Route (Schools) 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % - Per animal 49.00 51.00 4.08 Barbecue Charges 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Up to 60 people Monday – Thursday 29.00 29.00 0.00 Up to 60 people Friday – Sunday 39.00 39.00 0.00 Over 60 people Monday – Thursday 45.00 45.00 0.00 Over 60 people Friday – Sunday 55.00 55.00 0.00 School Parties 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ % £ - Classroom hire 35.00 36.50 4.29 - Equipment hire 19.25 20.00 3.90 - Visit / Activity – Led by EBC Staff – per child 1.50 1.60 6.67 General Guided Walks (Minimum Charge) 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % - Adults 2.30 2.40 4.35 - Concessions 1.50 1.60 6.67 Play Schemes – weekly charge 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % – weekly charge 67.50 70.00 3.70 Hire of High Hill Field (Minimum Charge) 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Charitable organisations - Up to 1,000 people 200.00 210.00 5.00 - Over 1,000 people 385.00 400.00 3.90 Non – Charitable Organisations - Up to 1,000 people 385.00 400.00 3.90 - Over 1,000 people 780.00 820.00 5.13 Room hire per hour (minimum charge 2 hours) 14.00 15.00 7.14 Room Hire for Parties (Up to 3 hours) 0.00 35.00 NEW
23 191
Itchen Valley Country Park – car park charges in 2008-09
Length of Under 1 hour 1 – 4 hours Over 4 hours stay Days Mon-Sat Sun / Mon-Sat Sun / Mon-Sat Sun / £ BH £ BH £ BH £ £ £ Cars 0.50 0.75 1.001.50 1.50 2.20 Coaches 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 Orange / Blue Free Free Free Free Free Free badges Motorcycles Free Free Free Free Free Free Annual Full price: £25.25 (3.06%) Concessions: £18.85 (3.01%) Permits Seasonal Full price: £9.20 (3.37%) Concessions: £7.25 (3.57%) Permits
Itchen Valley Country Park – car park charges proposed for 2007-08
Length of Under 1 hour 1 – 4 hours Over 4 hours stay Days Mon-Sat Sun / Mon-Sat Sun / Mon-Sat Sun / £ BH £ BH £ BH £ £ £ Cars 0.50 0.75 1.001.50 1.50 2.20 Coaches 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 Orange / Blue Free Free Free Free Free Free badges Motorcycles Free Free Free Free Free Free Annual Full price: £24.50 (3.2%) Concessions: £18.30 (3.1%) Permits Seasonal Full price: £8.90 (3.5%) Concessions: £7.00 (3.7%) Permits
Lakeside Country Park 2007-08 2008-09 Change Per 4 Hour Session £ £ % Commercial Rate – all areas 7.00 20.00 185.71 Concessionary Rate – all areas 7.00 10.00 42.86
In addition to the new, per session, rates for 2008/09 there will be a £1 launch fee per craft.
192 24
APPENDIX E Outdoor Sports Facilities with effect from 1 April 2008
OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Charges shown are exclusive of VAT Cricket 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Pitch for Adults with two dressing 52.00 55.00 5.77 rooms half day or evening matches Pitch for children (under 18 years) 26.00 27.50 5.77 with changing facilities Football 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Pitch for Adults with two dressing 52.00 55.00 5.77 rooms Pitch for children (under 18 years) 26.00 27.50 5.77 with changing facilities Mini - Soccer pitch - per session 15.00 20.00 33.33 Mini – Rugby pitch - per session 0.00 15.00 100.00 Tennis 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Adult-per court, per hour 5.20 5.50 5.77 Junior-per court, per hour 2.60 2.75 5.77 Rugby 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Pitch-Adults with two dressing rooms 57.00 60.00 5.26 Pitch-children (under 18) with 28.50 30.00 5.26 dressing room HILTINGBURY PAVILION (VAT not 2007-08 2008-09 Change included) £ £ % Casual lettings – first hour 7.30 8.00 9.59 Casual lettings – per hour or part 5.20 5.50 5.77 hour thereafter Permanent lettings – per hour or part 5.00 5.25 5.00 hour Organisations running functions for 21.00 25.00 19.05 profit – per hour or part hour ( minimum Charge £55.00) Cricket teas – use of pavilion (charge 7.25 8.00 10.34 include use of kitchen)
Please note that Charges for The Hub are shown in Appendix B.
25 193
APPENDIX F
Cemeteries Fees and Charges with effect from 1 April 2008
Cemeteries 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Internment:- All charges inclusive of VAT where applicable Child less than 12 years old No charge No charge n/a (including still born) Single depth 500.00 550.00 10.00 Double depth 650.00 720.00 10.77 Re-open to single depth 550.00 600.00 9.09 Cremated remains 165.00 180.00 9.09 For right to scatter ashes 40.00 45.00 12.50 Additional charge for providing a 24 275.00 310.00 12.73 hour burial service Exhumation At cost At cost n/a Additional Charge for Weekend 100.00 110.00 10.00 Working Or late funerals incurring overtime Plot in Columbarium (includes 815.00 500.00 -38.65 purchase and rights for inscribed plaque and first interment)
Exclusive burial rights: - 30 years 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Plot selected by Council (purchased at time of burial):- Plot for Adult 450.00 500.00 11.11 Plot for Child 250.00 280.00 12.00 Plot for Cremated remains 170.00 190.00 11.76 Plot selected by Purchaser 2007-08 2008-09 Change (Purchased in advance):- Only £ £ % available at Eastleigh Cemetery Plot for Adult 650.00 - Service Withdrawn Plot for Cremated remains 275.00 300.00 9.09 Transferral of burial deeds 55.00 55.00 0.00
Memorials: 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Inscribing vase under 10” 40.00 45.00 12.50 Any memorial (includes memorial 175.00 200.00 14.29 licence for 10 years) Charges for additional inscription 35.00 40.00 14.29 Licence to have memorial for further 35.00 70.00 100.00 10 years Memorial shrubs or roses for 7 years 80.00 90.00 12.50
194 26
Memorial trees for 7 years At Cost At Cost n/a Memorial benches for 7 years At Cost At Cost n/a Memorial benches for additional 7 35.00 40.00 14.29 years
Average % increase 13.1%
N.B Double charges will be made for all of the above fees will be made to non- Residents (after two years outside of the Borough). An exception is made where a resident transfers outside the Borough for specialist Nursing Home or Hospital Care.
27 195
APPENDIX G
Other Key Service Areas
Building Control
Building Control fees 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Copies of official notices 19.00 20.00 5.26 Building regulation fees various various n/a
Democratic Services
Sale of publications (annual charge) 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % All local area committees 290.00 303.00 4.48 Full Council (including minutes) 120.00 125.00 4.17 Scrutiny Panels 151.00 158.00 4.64 Cabinet 151.00 158.00 4.64 Administration Committee 34.00 36.00 5.88 Standards Committee 34.00 36.00 5.88 Special Joint Committee 58.00 61.00 5.17 Local Plan (to cover costs) 19.00 20.00 5.26 Licensing Committee 33.00 33.00 0.00 Single Publications 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Minutes of a single meeting 7.25 7.60 4.83 Agendas – to include accompanying reports 7.25 7.60 4.83 Individual report 3.20 3.30 3.13 Other Publications 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Budget Book 25.00 26.00 4.00 Annual Report 13.00 14.00 7.69
Please note that copies of the Budget Book and Final Accounts are available free of charge via the internet and Council website.
Direct Services
Waste Collection 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Removal of vehicles 156.00 165.00 5.77 Disposal of Vehicles 156.00 165.00 5.77 Storage of Vehicles 21.00 22.00 4.77 Private Property - Removal and Disposal of 156.00 165.00 5.77 Vehicle Private Property - Removal and Disposal of 156.00 165.00 5.77 Caravan
196 28
Bulky items 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Up to 8 units 27.00 28.50 5.77 Each unit thereafter 2.50 2.50 0.00 Bulky Waste/Quoted Work Minimum Charge 27.00 28.50 5.56 Trade Waste 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % 240 litre bin 6.06 6.54 7.92 500 litre bin 7.08 7.65 8.05 660 litre bin 8.35 9.00 7.78 1,100 litre bin 9.17 9.90 7.96 Additional Sacks 0.70 0.80 14.29 Trade Recycling Sacks 1.00 1.05 5.00 Trade Recycling Euro bin 2.89 3.18 10.03 Special Collections 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Garden waste weekly service (per sack) 20.00 21.00 5.00 Garden waste plastic sacks (per sack if 0.52 0.55 5.77 customer as above) Garden waste plastic sacks (per sack if not 1.04 1.10 5.77 customer as above) Abandoned Shopping Trolleys 2007-08 2008-09 Change (per trolley) £ £ % Collect & Return (By Prior Agreement) 10.00 12.50 25.00 Collected by Store – Over 48 Hour Delay 20.00 25.00 25.00 Returned by EBC to Store – Over 48 Hour 30.00 35.00 16.67 Delay Disposed of by EBC – Over 48 Hour Delay 50.00 55.00 10.00 Vehicle Workshop 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Car Loan Inspections 55.00 57.50 4.55
Environmental Health
Animal Welfare 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Riding establishments up to 10 horses 95.00 100.00 5.26 11-20 horses 140.00 146.00 4.29 21-30 horses 213.00 222.50 4.46 30 plus horses 213.00 222.50 4.46 Cost per horse over 30 4.20 4.40 4.76 All of the above are plus consultant vet fees Animal Boarding Establishments Act fees 95.00 100.00 5.26 Breeding of Dogs Act fees 65.00 68.00 4.62 Pet Animals Act fees 65.00 68.00 4.62 Dangerous Wild Animals Act fees 118.00 123.00 4.24 Food Safety/Health and Safety 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Food hygiene/health and safety course 50.00 52.50 5.00
29 197
Surrender certificates (disposal of food) 109.00 114.00 4.59 Certificates in respect of foodstuffs for 45.00 47.00 4.44 export Food Premises Register 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Copy of single entry 1.40 1.50 7.14 Copy of entry for category 14.00 14.50 3.57 Copy of complete register 72.50 75.50 4.14 Skin piercing – registration fee 77.70 81.00 4.25 Hairdressers – registration fee 77.70 81.00 4.25 Game dealers licence 16.00 17.00 6.25 Pleasure Boats 2007-08 2008-09 Change (EBC Charge) £ £ % New boats and boatmen’s licences (plus 25.00 26.00 4.00 exam fee where applicable) Renewal 25.00 26.00 4.00 Pest Control 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Treatment of wasps - cash or cheque 38.00 40.00 5.26 2007-08 2008-09 Change Treatment of Fleas £ £ % Property up to 3 bedrooms 46.00 48.00 4.35 Property up to 4 bedrooms 52.00 54.00 3.85 Property up to 5 bedrooms 65.00 68.00 4.62 2007-08 2008-09 Change Treatment of Insect Infestation £ £ % Domestic property 50.00 52.50 5.00 Business property 50.00 52.50 5.00 2007-08 2008-09 Change Rodent Control £ £ % Rats - domestic property 40.00 42.00 5.00 Mice - domestic property 32.00 33.00 3.13 Rodent control - business premises under 15.60 16.50 5.77 contract Rodent control - business premises not 50.00 52.00 4.00 under contract Street Trading Licences / Consents 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Single Event (Three to seven days in a 26.00 27.50 5.77 block) No charge for single event for registered 0.00 0.00 0.00 charities Annual Consent/License (one day/night per 415.00 435.00 4.82 week) Annual Consent/License (more than one 415.00 435.00 4.82 day/night per week) plus £62 plus £65 for each for each additional additional day/night day/night
198 30
per week per week Other Licences Vehicle salvage operators 80.30 84.00 4.61
Housing Services
Housing 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % House Inspection Fee re immigration 84.00 88.00 4.97 compatibility HMO Licensing (Houses in Multiple 37.00 38.00 2.70 Occupation) – per hour charge
Engineering Services
Highways 2007-08 2008-09 Change Road Closures – Temporary Orders £ £ % All Other 912.00 958.00 5.04 HCC – Actual Cost of Advertising at cost at cost n/a 2007-08 2008-09 Change Road Closures – Temporary Notice £ £ % All Other 256.00 268.80 5.00 HCC No Charge No Charge n/a Road Closure for Public Event - first 2007-08 2008-09 Change application £ £ % Charitable bodies Free Free n/a All 376.00 394.00 4.80 Road Closure for Public Event - second 2007-08 2008-09 Change application: £ £ % Charitable bodies 187.60 197.00 5.01 All others 376.00 394.80 5.00 2007-08 2008-09 Change Additional Highway Enquiries £ £ % Search Fees 51.00 53.00 3.92 Tables and chairs on the highway 259.00 300.00 15.83
Legal Services
Miscellaneous Licences 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Amusements with prizes (gaming machines) 250.00 250.00 0.00 Amusements with prizes (Fruit Machines) 34.00 34.00 0.00 Lotteries License – Statutory Fee 35.00 35.00 0.00 Control of sex establishments 2,200.00 2,300.00 4.55 Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Operators 2007-08 2008-09 Change (Subject to Consultation) £ £ % Operators licence 158.00 165.00 4.43 Vehicle licence 172.00 180.00 4.65 Drivers licence (includes first knowledge test) 70.00 70.00 0.00
31 199
Retest of knowledge n/a n/a n/a Inspection of taxi/PHV 63.50 63.50 0.00 Inspections – Minor Items FREE FREE FREE Inspections – Failure to attend 65.70 65.70 0.00 Inspections – Partial Retest 20.00 20.00 0.00 Transfer of vehicles 58.00 60.00 3.45 Transfer of vehicles within 14 days 20.00 21.00 5.00 Meter Tests 20.00 20.00 0.00 Admin Fee – Neglect to provide information 20.00 20.00 0.00 Land Searches 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Full Official Search (Hard Copy) 137.00 140.00 2.19 Full Official Search (Electronic) 137.00 140.00 2.19 LLC1 (Hard Copy) 39.00 39.00 0.00 LLC1 (Electronic) 39.00 39.00 0.00 Part II enquiries (Hard copy or electronic) 15.00 18.00 20.00 Part I enquiries – additional parcels of land 12.00 20.00 66.67 Photocopying of Legal Agreement 28.70 30.00 4.53 Further copies of searches 14.50 14.50 0.00 Personal Searches 11.00 11.00 0.00 Personal Searches – Photocopying 2.00 2.00 0.00 Refresher search within 6 months only 90.00 90.00 0.00 Gambling Act 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Converted Casino Premises Licence - 2000.00 2000.00 0.00 maximum conversation application fee for non fast track application Converted Casino Premises Licence 3000.00 3000.00 0.00 Maximum annual fee Converted Casino Premises Licence 2000.00 2000.00 0.00 maximum fee for application to vary licence Converted Casino Premises Licence 1350.00 1350.00 0.00 maximum fee for application to transfer a licence Converted Casino Premises Licence 1350.00 1350.00 0.00 maximum fee for application for reinstatement of a licence Bingo Premises Licence Maximum conversion 1750.00 1750.00 0.00 application fee for non fast track application Bingo Premises Licence maximum non 1200.00 1200.00 0.00 conversion application fee in respect of provisional statement premises Bingo Premises Licence maximum non 3500.00 3500.00 0.00 conversion application fee in respect of other premises Bingo Premises Licence Maximum annual fee 1000.00 1000.00 0.00 Bingo Premises Licence Maximum fee for 1750.00 1750.00 0.00 application to vary licence Bingo Premises Licence Maximum fee for 1200.00 1200.00 0.00
200 32
application to transfer a licence Bingo Premises Licence Maximum fee for 1200.00 1200.00 0.00 application for reinstatement of a licence Bingo Premises Licence Maximum fee for 3500.00 3500.00 0.00 application for provisional statement Adult Gaming Centre Premises Licence 1000.00 1000.00 0.00 Maximum conversion application fee for non fast track application Adult Gaming Centre Premises Licence 1200.00 1200.00 0.00 maximum non conversion application fee in respect of provisional statement premises Adult Gaming Centre Premises Licence 2000.00 2000.00 0.00 maximum non conversion application fee in respect of other premises Adult Gaming Centre Premises Licence 1000.00 1000.00 0.00 maximum annual fee Adult Gaming Centre Premises Licence 1000.00 1000.00 0.00 Maximum fee for application to vary licence Adult Gaming Centre Premises Licence 1200.00 1200.00 0.00 maximum fee for application to transfer a licence Adult Gaming Centre Premises Licence 1200.00 1200.00 0.00 maximum fee for reinstatement of a licence Adult Gaming Centre Premises Licence 2000.00 2000.00 0.00 Maximum fee for application for provisional statement Betting Premises (track) Licence maximum 1250.00 1250.00 0.00 conversion application fee for non fast track application Betting Premises (track) Licence maximum 950.00 950.00 0.00 non conversion application fee in respect of provisional statement premises Betting Premises (track) Licence maximum 2500.00 2500.00 0.00 non conversion application fee in respect of other premises Betting Premises (track) Licence maximum 1000.00 1000.00 0.00 annual fee Betting Premises (track) Licence maximum 1250.00 1250.00 0.00 fee for application to vary licence Betting Premises (track) Licence maximum 950.00 950.00 0.00 fee for application to transfer a licence Betting Premises (track) Licence maximum 950.00 950.00 0.00 fee for application for reinstatement of a licence Betting Premises (track) Licence maximum 2500.00 2500.00 0.00 fee for application for provisional statement Family entertainment centre premises licence 1000.00 1000.00 0.00 maximum conversion application fee for non fast track application Family entertainment centre premises licence 950.00 950.00 0.00
33 201
maximum non conversion application fee in respect of provisional statement premises Family entertainment centre premises licence 2000.00 2000.00 0.00 maximum non conversion application fee in respect of other premises Family entertainment centre premises licence 750.00 750.00 0.00 maximum annual fee Family entertainment centre premises licence 1000.00 1000.00 0.00 maximum fee for application to vary licence Family entertainment centre premises licence 950.00 950.00 0.00 maximum fee for application to transfer a licence Family entertainment centre premises licence 950.00 950.00 0.00 maximum fee for application for reinstatement of a licence Family entertainment centre premises licence 2000.00 2000.00 0.00 maximum fee for application for provisional statement Betting premises (other) Licence maximum 1500.00 1500.00 0.00 conversion application fee for non fast track application Betting premises (other) Licence maximum 1200.00 1200.00 0.00 non conversion application fee in respect of provisional statement premises Betting premises (other) Licence maximum 3000.00 3000.00 0.00 non conversion application fee in respect of other premises Betting premises (other) Licence maximum 600.00 600.00 0.00 annual fee Betting premises (other) Licence maximum 1500.00 1500.00 0.00 fee for application to vary licence Betting premises (other) Licence maximum 1200.00 1200.00 0.00 fee for application to transfer a licence Betting premises (other) Licence maximum 1200.00 1200.00 0.00 fee for application for reinstatement of a licence Betting premises (other) Licence maximum 3000.00 3000.00 0.00 fee for application for provisional statement Change of circumstance fee 50.00 52.50 5.00 Copy of a licence 25.00 26.00 4.00 Conversion of premises licence - fast track 300.00 315.00 5.00 application Elections 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Marked registers 0.25 0.30 20.00 Letters confirming register entry 12.40 13.00 4.84
202 34
Planning
Planning 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Planning application fee variable variable n/a Local Plan 72.50 76.00 4.83 Planning decision notice 19.00 20.00 5.26 Ordnance Survey charge 4.00 4.20 5.00 Copy of plans - A4 2.40 2.50 4.17 A3 2.70 2.80 370 Larger than A3 4.90 5.10 4.08 Additional copies 0.70 0.75 7.18 Personal searches 18.40 19.20 4.35 Copies of tree preservation orders 28.70 30.00 4.53 Copy of Section 52/106 agreements 28.70 30.00 4.53 Section 52/106 compliance check 66.50 70.00 5.26 Landscape assessment 40.70 42.50 4.42 Comprehensive Planning Site 66.50 70.00 5.26 Hedge Conciliation 465.00 470.00 1.00 Hedge Conciliation - Concession 103.50 105.00 1.45 2007-08 2008-09 Change Weekly list of applications: £ £ % One week 8.40 8.80 4.76 Yearly subscription 399.20 417.20 4.51
Other Property Related Services
Meals on Wheels 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Meals on Wheels with effect from 1 April 2008 2.50 2.60 4.00 Allotments# 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Charge per rod 4.00 4.00 0.00 Charge per rod for over 60s 2.00 2.00 0.00 Civic Offices Room Bookings 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Committee Room 37.00 38.00 2.70 Conference Room 26.00 27.00 3.80 Council Chamber 62.00 63.00 1.60 # Allotment charges are reviewed every three years.
Revenues and Benefits Concessionary Travel 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Replacement bus passes 5.00 5.00 0.00 Non payment of Council Tax / NNDR 2007-08 2008-09 Change £ £ % Summons and liability orders Amount agreed by Court
35 203
Childcare Development
Mobile Crèche 2007-08 2008-09 Change Community £ £ % Cost per hour - 2 Staff 25.00 30.00 20.00 Cost per hour - 3 Staff 30.00 36.00 20.00 Cost per hour - 4 Staff 40.00 42.00 5.00 Cost per hour - 5 Staff 50.00 48.00 -4.00
Mobile Crèche 2007-08 2008-09 Change Corporate £ £ % Cost per hour - 2 Staff 25.00 35.00 40.00 Cost per hour - 3 Staff 30.00 43.00 43.33 Cost per hour - 4 Staff 40.00 51.00 27.50 Cost per hour - 5 Staff 50.00 59.00 18.00
# Minimum Crèche booking is three hours for a two hour crèche due to set up / clear up time.
204 36 Agenda Item 17
CABINET
Monday 10 December 2007
THE POINT TAXATION CONSIDERATIONS
Joint Report of the Head of Arts and the Head of Financial Services
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Cabinet approve the increase in the capital cost of the Point Phase III as a result of non-recoverable VAT.
Purpose
The construction of the Point Phase III facility will cause the Council to exceed its VAT partial exemption limit in two successive financial years (2008/2009 & 2009/2010). This report explains why the Council will incur VAT tax burdens in relation to the building of the Point Phase III, and what action can be taken to ensure that the related tax burdens are minimised.
Statutory Power Section 151 of the 1972 Local Government Act Introduction
1. Since its inception in 1996 The Point has been the Borough’s flagship arts facility. One of the country’s first lottery funded capital projects, it was also one of the most successful, not only being built on time and on budget but in delivering all of the objectives that led to the success of the original build.
2. Indeed such was the success that The Point has operated on capacity from almost the day it opened. It continues to divide its programme between community hires, cinema and professional performances and has also seen an increase in its corporate business and the number of tenants it supports in its complex of offices. With an annual footfall of 100,000, increased classes and a high number of sell-out performances, the pressure on the current building has been strained for some years.
3. Taking the opportunity afforded by the vacation of the old library buildings, Members agreed to a proposal to take back those buildings for direct use, to expand the arts programme and develop its support for the arts in line with the recent investments in sports and recreation facilities. This was part of a two prong initiative which would also see the expansion of facilities in the south of the Borough in Hedge End.
4. The strategy presents a challenge to increase external revenue funding to make the long term operation of the complex viable. This was achieved following on from two high level grants from the Arts Council SE.
fs282 205
5. In preparing the current and future Business Plan for The Point there has also been another consideration which has been flagged up in previous reports, with regard to the council’s overall VAT position. The Point has always been classified as a cultural facility and a significant element of the income charged is therefore exempt of VAT.
6. However, the Council has other business activities (Wessex House, Grange Park and Lakeside), where income raised is also totally or significantly exempt of VAT. There is a limit to the total amount of VAT that can be treated as exempt which for this Council is approximately £100,000 each year. This is known as the partial exemption limit and if breached the Council has to pay the full £100,000 plus the amount over the limit to HM Revenues and Customs (HMRC) i.e. incurring exempt VAT of £1,000 above this limit would result in a penalty of £101,000. Taking all of these activities together places pressure on the Council’s partial exemption VAT threshold and each year through careful management the limit has not been exceeded.
7. Under the current fee structure of The Point the proposed construction of Phase III would result in the partial exemption limit being exceeded. The Arts Unit has been exploring a variety of ways that could relieve this pressure, whilst delivering the Council’s key priority of increasing the number and availability of facilities for the community. Detailed below is the most viable option in relation to the prospective build of the Point Phase III to enable the Council’s aims to be delivered whilst prudently managing its Budget.
Financial Implications
8. If the scheme were to be built without adjustments to the application of VAT on an array of fee income charges at the Point, the financial implications would be as follows:
Phase III at the Point being constructed without fee income VAT taxation adjustments £’000
Exceeding the Council’s 5% “Partial Exemption Threshold” in 100 2008/2009
Exceeding the Council’s 5% “Partial Exemption Threshold” in 100 2009/2010
VAT incurred on the construction cost that cannot be recovered from 324 HMRC (the amount shown here takes reference to the fact that The Point’s income is only partially (not fully) exempt). Currently calculated that 81% of income is exempt of VAT
Total VAT that could not be recovered from HMRC in a two year 524 period
9. Following discussions with external VAT advisors it has been established that there
206 fs282
is only one viable strategy to reduce the VAT liability in relation to this matter, which consists of two distinct stages as detailed in the following paragraphs.
10. Stage 1 – Obtaining an “Option to Tax”. The Council should apply for an “Option to Tax” on the entire Point site. This option would mean that all fee income received from room rentals would attract VAT at the standard rate (currently 17.5%).
11. The Council will need to raise fee income at The Point in the total sum of £16,000 at the time of obtaining the “option to tax”. This is because the fee income for rentals would then be deemed to include VAT from the moment that the “option to tax” is introduced. The Head of Arts will consider the best possible solution for raising this additional income from users at The Point in the coming months.
12. A further report will presented to Cabinet nearer the time of introducing the “option to tax” specifying what fee increases would be necessary to absorb the VAT whilst taking due regard of elasticity of demand. It is most important that Stage 1 is fully completed prior to the expression of intention and activation of Stage 2 (which follows).
13. Stage 2 – Taxing cinema income at The Point. The Council needs to tax a significant element of fee income raised from activities at The Point, as it is the only method by which (assuming Stage 1 obtains a successful outcome) it can significantly reduce the partial exemption effect during the period of The Point Phase III build and the ongoing operation of the facility..
14. As The Point’s main income (other than room rentals, food/bar sales and cinema tickets) is of a distinct cultural nature there is no possibility of introducing VAT on these cultural charges. However, a recent HMRC tribunal case does imply that the Council could levy VAT on cinema ticket sales.
15. The Council will need to raise fee income at The Point in the total sum of £4,000 at the time of levying VAT on all cinema income. The Head of Arts will consider the best possible solution for raising this additional income from users at The Point in the coming months in the same report that will consider the “option to tax” for accommodation rentals (referred to in paragraph 12).
Effect of undertaking both stages 1 & 2 on the VAT partial exemption calculation
16. The penalty cannot be totally avoided but by following Stages 1 & 2 can be reduced as follows:
Phase 3 at the Point being constructed with fee income restructured with regard to vat as per Stages 1 & 2 £’000
Exceeding the Council’s 5% “Partial Exemption Threshold” in 100 2008/2009
Exceeding the Council’s 5% “Partial Exemption Threshold” in 100 2009/2010 fs282 207
VAT incurred on the construction cost straddling two financial years 150 that cannot be recovered from HMRC (VAT reduced to 37% of an exempt nature)
Total VAT that could not be recovered from HMRC in the two 350 year period 2008/2009 & 2009/2010
Risk Management
17. The following risk results from building The Point Phase III, but not undertaking Stages 1 & 2:
• The Council would incur a tax liability in two financial years of around £524,000
18. The following risk results from building The Point Phase III, and undertaking the application of Stages 1 & 2:
• The Council would incur a tax liability of around £350,000
• There is a risk of not obtaining the “option to tax” as described in Stage I.
• The whole scheme build is at risk if Stage 1 cannot be achieved, unless the Council agrees to absorb the whole financial effect as described in the introduction to this report (£524,000).
• There is a risk that HMRC could be opposed to the Council’s stance regarding applying VAT on to the sale of cinema tickets.
• Not being able to capitalise a relatively minor proportion of the VAT liability incurred as a result of exceeding the partial exemption threshold. Therefore having to fund it from revenue.
Conclusions
19. There is no current perfect solution with regard to the tax implications of the construction of The Point Phase III. However, the application of Stages 1 & 2 described in this report can effectively reduce the VAT tax burden with regard to the construction to around £350,000 during the period of build. Ignoring the advantages that the two stage plan could achieve would mean that the Council would be faced with a tax liability of £524,000.
20. However, whilst the two stage plan can achieve a VAT tax reduction liability of £174,000 it does still mean that the Council would exceed the yearly VAT partial exemption calculation in two consecutive financial years. In addition, the absorption of VAT at the standard rate within the fee tariff for room and cinema charges would require a revenue growth of £20,000 in a full year unless steps are taken to charge
208 fs282
users at least some increase.
CHERYL BUTLER MARTIN MURPHY Head of Arts Head of Financial Services
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Report No: fs282 Date: 19 November 2007 Contact Officers: Cheryl Butler and Martin Murphy Telephone: 023 8068 8187 and 023 8068 8002 E-Mail: [email protected] and [email protected] Appendices: None
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based, and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
External VAT Consultant – report to Eastleigh Borough Council “Partial Exemption” February 2005 External VAT Consultant – report to Eastleigh Borough Council “The Point – Phase III Refurbishment” August 2006 Financial Services V12
fs282 209 This page is intentionally left blank
210 Agenda Item 20
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT SCRUTINY PANEL
Thursday 15 November 2007
CABINET
Monday 10 December 2007
CONCESSIONARY FARES – ANNUAL REPORT
Report of the Head of Revenue & Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT SCRUTINY PANEL
It is recommended that the Scrutiny Panel recommend to Cabinet that:
(1) The rate of redemption of tokens for 2006/2007 and the savings from that year of £56,449 as shown in Appendix 1 be noted;
(2) The level of take-up by area as shown in Appendix 2 be noted;
(3) Additional budget provision of £192,000 for 2007/2008 be made as per paragraphs 22 - 28 of this report;
(4) The value of tokens from 1 July 2008 remain at £32 for those recipients aged 70-79 years of age and £52 for recipients over 80 years of age;
(5) The value of TV licence concessions from 1 July 2008 remain at £32; and
(6) The remaining scheme administration details contained within this report be noted. RECOMMENDATION TO CABINET
That, subject to consideration of the comments of the Environment and Transport Scrutiny Panel, the recommendations above be agreed.
Summary
This annual report has been prepared in order to inform Members of the level of take-up of Concessionary Fares as well as the financial outcome of the sixth year of Eastleigh’s Travel Token scheme and other related Concessionary Fares matters.
Statutory Powers
Transport Acts 1985, 2000 and 2007 and subsequent amendments.
RB74 1 211 Introduction
1. This annual report informs Members of the level of take up of Concessionary Fares and other issues related to the administration of the Concessionary Fares Scheme.
2. Members will be aware that from 1 April 2006 the mandatory ‘half-fare’ bus travel scheme was replaced with ‘free’ bus travel and details of the level of take-up and financial implications are given in this report.
3. As Members are also aware, Eastleigh has been administering its own travel token scheme since 2000 increasing the extent of that scheme from July 2005 by introducing a rail voucher scheme in addition to the mandatory bus pass scheme.
4. The Eastleigh scheme far exceeds the mandatory bus pass scheme by providing:-
• Travel throughout the County and beyond provided the journey starts or ends in the County and is continuous (as part of the County wide Fare Pass scheme)
• All Day travel as opposed to off-peak only
• Travel on four services provided by community transport
and as an alternative to the free bus pass:-
• rail voucher for those aged between 60-69 years which allows the purchase of a senior citizens railcard free of charge
• tokens for residents aged over 70 years of age or those registered disabled, with increased levels of tokens for those aged over 80 years of age.
5. Eastleigh’s tokens are a different colour each year and have an expiry date of 31 August in the year following that of issue, allowing for a maximum usage of between 14–15 months. The tokens can be used on buses, taxis, dial-a-ride, hospital transport cars, voluntary driver schemes and trains.
6. Although not under the scheme itself, where a qualifying resident is unable to use any form of public transport because they are housebound a payment of £32 is made towards the cost of a TV licence to those residents under 75 years of age, as an alternative to travel tokens/passes.
7. Members should also be reminded that the concession year, unlike the financial year, runs from 1 July to 30 June with usage of tokens being permitted to 31 August and redemption until 15 September for taxi drivers and until 30 September for bus companies. The financial information contained in this report therefore relates to the concession period and not the financial year.
212 RB74 2 Eastleigh’s Travel Token Scheme 2006/2007
8. Appendix 1 of this report gives details of the number of recipients and the total amount of tokens issued during the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 with the previous year for comparison purposes. The appendix also gives details of amount of tokens redeemed by bus companies, taxis etc.
9. Members will also see that 76.3% of the tokens issued have been redeemed compared to 75.8% last year, leaving a balance of tokens collected but unused of £56,449 compared to £81,812 in 2005/2006. The reduced amount takes account of the reduced take up of travel tokens in favour of the free bus pass.
10. Appendix 2 gives details of the numbers of recipients as at 31 March 2007 by area and also shows the percentage split between tokens, passes and rail vouchers, together with the percentage of the overall number issued in the borough for each area.
11. It is still fair to say that the best value exercise undertaken in 1999/2000 has resulted in a substantial reduction in the scheme costs for the Council, which has happened without increasing the cost of administration due to the increased efforts and changes to working practices of the staff in that area.
Changes to the Mandatory Scheme from 2006/2007
12. The Government announced changes to the mandatory bus pass scheme effective from 1 April 2006.
13. Those changes meant that residents aged 60 years and over would receive a free bus pass that allows them to travel free of charge in the local area, during off-peak times.
14. In the first year of the scheme 10,924 free bus passes were issued and this number has increased to 12,531 at 3 October 2007 which represents 66.4% of the concession issued.
15. In Appendix 3 a breakdown of the concessions issued at the 3 October 2007 is given by area for members’ information.
Eastleigh’s Enhanced Scheme
16. As Eastleigh was already enhancing the mandatory scheme it was decided that Eastleigh should continue to be part of the Hampshire-wide scheme which allows travel throughout Hampshire and beyond provided the journey starts or ends in the County and is continuous as well as providing alternative concessions as detailed in paragraph 4 above.
17. Unfortunately one of our neighbouring authorities, Fareham Borough Council, withdrew from the Hampshire scheme due to financial reasons. In addition some other neighbouring authorities have restricted their schemes to off-peak travel only.
RB74 3 213 18. The above variances in individual authorities’ schemes did not affect travel for Eastleigh Borough residents as they could still travel in and around Fareham and into other areas at peak times as passes clearly show which borough has issued them.
19. Eastleigh has the most generous scheme in the County including an agreement with One Community for the acceptance of the free bus pass on four of their services, The services are:
• Dial-a-ride
• Dial-a-ride shopping trips
• Parish Link
• Hedge End Park Mini Bus Service
20. The agreed administration arrangements for reimbursement to One Community mean that they have been directly reimbursed by EBC (similar to reimbursement for tokens) instead of being part of the Hampshire Pass reimbursement scheme.
21. The use of the free bus pass on One Community services has been much higher than originally anticipated which proves that the service is widely used by residents who find it difficult to travel by bus thus giving more help to those residents than previously given by the issue of tokens.
Financial Implications 2006/2007 and 2007/2008
22. The final cost of the free bus pass scheme for both 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 is still subject to the outcome of representation to the government and negotiations with bus companies following their successful appeals.
23. At the time of writing this report there had been no agreement reached, despite various negotiations between our consultants and the bus companies, on the level of financial settlements required from these disputes for either 2006/2007 or 2007/2008.
24. For 2006/2007 a sundry creditor of £72,211 was accounted for and from recent discussion held with Hampshire Authorities and our consultants MCL it is likely that this amount will be sufficient to cover any additional costs due for that year.
25. However for 2007/2008 it has been estimated that additional payments in the region of £160k will be required although this is still subject to agreement with bus companies.
26. In addition to the outcome of the appeals we have been advised by our consultants that Hampshire bus pass usage has increased substantially since 1 April 2007 and based on the first three months data the cost of the scheme for Eastleigh will increase by £185,415 for 2007/2008.
214 RB74 4 27. An analysis of the current concessionary fares budget however shows that savings of £153k can be made from that allocated for the reimbursement of tokens and rail vouchers and therefore the overall additional budget requirement is £192k.
28. It is therefore recommended that additional budget provision be made for the above amount.
Changes in Administration
29. From 1 April 2007 the previous cardboard pass was replaced with a plastic card and the production outsourced in order to produce them in a timely manner due to the increase in numbers.
30. The Head of Revenue & Benefits is pleased to report that the production and issue of the plastic card has been a complete success, both with regard to the timely production and within budget.
Travel Tokens from 1 July 2008
31. With the budget uncertainties of the cost of the National ‘free’ pass scheme, it is recommended that no increase in tokens is given this year.
32. However, for members’ information an increase of £1 in the level of tokens for those aged 70 -79 years would result in an estimated additional budget requirement of £3,300 and a £1 increase for those aged over 80 years would require an estimated additional budget requirement of £2,100.
Contribution to TV Licence Fee
33. TV licence stamps can no longer be purchased and therefore administrative procedures were changed from 1 July 2006 so that a cheque would be sent to the recipient made payable to TV Licensing for the value of £32.00.
34. Currently there are 9 recipients under 75 years of age receiving this concession and it is recommended that, in line with the value of tokens for this age group, the amount given remains at the same level from 1 July 2008, currently £32.
Changes to the Mandatory Scheme from 1st April 2008
35. Members are probably aware that the Government has announced further changes to the mandatory free bus pass scheme effective from 1 April 2008.
36. The new scheme details are:
• scheme times to be off-peak i.e. 9.30 am – 11.00 pm on weekdays
• all day travel at weekends and bank holidays
• only normal bus services i.e. not national coaches etc
RB74 5 215 • travel in England only
• operators to be reimbursed by authority in which journey starts
• national Pass design
• authorities will be able to exercise discretion as with the current scheme i.e. give companion passes/amend the travel times
• administration of scheme proposed to move to the County from 2010 or 2011
37. It is also being suggested by the Department for Transport that administration of the Concessionary Fares Scheme moves to County Councils from 2010 or 2011 although full details on this have not yet been publicised or agreed.
38. As any local enhancement(s) to the National Scheme needs to be agreed by Members the Head of Revenue & Benefits will be preparing a separate report for the December meeting of the Cabinet outlining the local enhancement options and financial implications so that a decision can be made. As at the time of writing this report the financial information was still not available.
Concessionary Fares Annual Survey
39. For many years now a Concessionary Fares survey has been conducted and that survey has been sent out again this year.
40. As soon as the results of that survey have been compiled a copy of the document will be put into the members’ area for internal use only as it has been agreed amongst Hampshire Authorities not to distribute more widely.
41. If members have any questions concerning the content of that survey please contact the Head of Revenue & Benefits.
Risk Management
42. It is apparent that with so many unknowns there are many risks associated with any new scheme.
43. The main risks and any compensating action are detailed below:-
• Increased budget requirement for 2006/2007 & 2007/2008 – until the conclusion of the outcome of the appeals is known the amount required is an updated estimate only.
• Insufficient funding for the new scheme – until Central Government funding is confirmed for 2008/2009 we are unsure of the amount that the Council Tax payers will need to contribute.
• Customer dissatisfaction due to imposed changes that may be forced on Eastleigh’s scheme by the success of the bus company’s appeals
216 RB74 6 and the cost of any enhancements to the National Scheme – publication of any adverse changes to the scheme will need to be informative as to the reasons behind the changes i.e. imposed.
Conclusion
44. The success of Eastleigh’s own travel concession scheme is apparent from the content of this report and Members are requested to acknowledge the efforts of staff in that area which has ensured that the token scheme has been administered effectively and efficiently.
45. Properly planned and resourced implementation of the scheme’s administration arrangements is paramount to the success of the new scheme.
46. Although the final financial implications for the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 scheme are still not known until the outcome of the appeals by bus companies are finalised, this report gives an indication of the current level of additional budget required.
47. Changes to the mandatory scheme effective from 1 April 2008 will be reported to Members at the December Cabinet when further information is known on the scheme cost.
LORAINE RADFORD Head of Revenue & Benefits
Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN
Date: 11 October 2007 Contact Officer: Loraine Radford Tel No: 023 8068 8035 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: Three Report No RB74
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:
MCL Consultants letter re: Hampshire Fare Pass Scheme
Internal reconciliation documents
RB74 7 217 APPENDIX 1
EBC TOKEN SCHEME 2006/07
ISSUES & REDEMPTIONS
AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2007
ISSUES NUMBERS AMOUNT
2006/2007 2005/2006 2006/2007 2005/2006
Tokens Issued 6,101 9,364 £238,695 £338,717
Tokens Returned 21 7 £892 £237
Total 6,080 9,357 £237,803 £338,480
REDEMPTIONS
2006/2007 2005/2006
Bus Companies £23,673 (9.9%) £74,295 (29.0%)
South West Trains £34,219 (14.4%) £40,565 (15.8%)
Taxis £112,866 (47.5%) £127,207 (49.5%)
Dial-a-ride £2,389 (1.0%) £5,296 (3.2%)
Eastleigh Voluntary £7,313 (3.1%) £8,255 (3.2%) Transport
Good Neighbour £894 (0.4%) £1,050 (0.4%) Schemes
TOTAL REDEMPTION £181,354 (76.3%) £256,668(75.8%)
BALANCE NOT £56,449 (23.7%) £81,812 (24.2%) REDEEMED
218 RB74 8 APPENDIX 2
CONCESSIONARY FARES
AREA ANALYSIS
AS AT 31 MARCH 2007
AREA TRAVEL TOKENS/ PASSES TOTAL PERCENTAGE RAIL VOUCHERS/ OF TV LICENCE CONCESSIONS PAYMENT ISSUED
BISHOPSTOKE 535 1109 1644 8.8%
BOTLEY 344 317 661 3.6%
BURSLEDON 287 462 849 4.6%
CHANDLER’S 1801 2831 4632 24.9% FORD
EASTLEIGH 1052 2043 3095 16.6%
FAIR OAK 442 927 1369 7.3%
HAMBLE 346 366 712 3.8%
HEDGE END 1099 1497 2596 13.9%
HOUND 459 775 1234 6.6%
WEST END 754 1093 1847 9.9%
TOTAL 7219* 11420 18639 100%
*Includes 1262 Rail Vouchers, 9 TV Concessions, 3760 tokens under 80 years and 2188 tokens for over 80 years.
RB74 9 219 APPENDIX 3
CONCESSIONARY FARES
AREA ANALYSIS
AS AT 3 OCTOBER 2007
AREA TRAVEL PASSES TOTAL PERCENTAGE TOKENS/RAIL OF VOUCHERS/TV CONCESSIONS LICENCE ISSUED PAYMENT*
BISHOPSTOKE 450 1196 1646 8.7%
BOTLEY 315 361 676 3.6%
BURSLEDON 360 500 860 4.6%
CHANDLER’S 1586 3076 4662 24.7% FORD
EASTLEIGH 877 2264 3141 16.6%
FAIR OAK 373 1036 1409 7.5%
HAMBLE 324 400 724 3.8%
HEDGE END 979 1666 2645 14.0%
HOUND 391 829 1220 6.5%
WEST END 680 1203 1883 10.0%
TOTAL 6335* 12531 18866 100%
*Includes 1023 Rail Vouchers, 9 TV Concessions, 3238 tokens under 80 years and 2065 tokens for over 80 years.
220 RB74 10 EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT SCRUTINY PANEL, 15 NOVEMBER 2007:
Concessionary Fares - Annual Report
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Revenue and Benefits which provided details of the level of take-up of concessionary fares during 2006/2007, the financial outcome of the sixth year of Eastleigh’s travel token scheme and other related concessionary fares matters.
Appendix 1 to the report showed the number of recipients and the total amount of tokens issued during the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007, with the previous year’s figures for comparison. The appendix also provided details of the amount of tokens redeemed by bus companies and other transport providers in the scheme. 76.3% of tokens issued had been redeemed compared to 75.8% the previous year, leaving a balance of tokens collected but unused of £56,449 compared to £81,812 the previous year. This reduced amount took into account the reduction in take-up of travel tokens in favour of the free bus pass introduced on 1 April 2006.
Appendix 2 to the report provided details of the number of recipients as at 31 March 2007 by area and showed the percentage split between tokens, passes and rail vouchers. In Appendix 3, a breakdown of the concessions issued by area as at 3 October 2007 was provided.
The final cost of the free bus pass scheme for both 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 was still subject to the outcome of representation to the government and negotiations with bus companies following their successful appeals. For 2006/2007, a sundry creditor had been accounted for and it was likely that this amount would cover any additional costs for that year.
For 2007/2008 however, it had been estimated that additional payments in the region of £160,000 would be required. The Council’s consultants had also advised that Hampshire bus pass usage had increased substantially since 1 April 2007 and, based on data for the first three months, the cost of Eastleigh’s scheme was likely to increase by £185,415. An analysis of the current concessionary fares budget, however, showed that savings of £153,000 could be made from that allocated for the reimbursement of tokens and rail vouchers. It was therefore recommended that additional budget provision of £192,000 be made.
During discussion of the report, Panel members expressed concern regarding the government proposal that administration of the concessionary fares scheme would move to County Councils from 2010 or 2011. Members considered that Eastleigh’s scheme worked very successfully and referred to the recent cuts in bus services made by the County Council. It was considered that such a move would not help the need to reduce the use of cars and increase public transport use.
It was AGREED that it be recommended to Cabinet that:
221 (1) The rate of redemption of tokens for 2006/2007 and the savings from that year of £56,449 as shown in Appendix 1 be noted;
(2) The level of take-up by area as shown in Appendix 2 be noted;
(3) Additional budget provision of £192,000 for 2007/08 be made as per paragraphs 22-28 of the report;
(4) The value of tokens from 1 July 2008 remain at £32 for those recipients aged 70-79 years of age and £52 for recipients over 80 years of age;
(5) The value of TV licence concessions from 1 July 2008 remain at £32; and
(6) The remaining scheme administration details contained within the report be noted.
222 Agenda Item 22
Document is Restricted
223 This page is intentionally left blank
230 Document is Restricted
231 This page is intentionally left blank
232