PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL

Council Offices 52 Easton Street PORTLAND DT5 1BT

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

16th August 2017

Dear Councillor

You are hereby summoned to attend a MEETING of the PLANNING & HIGHWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, to be held in HALL, EASTON, PORTLAND, on WEDNESDAY, 23RD AUGUST 2017 commencing at 7.00 pm, when the business set out below will be transacted.

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

Yours faithfully

Ian Looker Town Clerk

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence – to receive

2. Declarations of Interest – to receive any declarations from Councillors or Officers of pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests regarding matters to be considered at this meeting, together with a statement on the nature of those interests

3. Minutes of the Meeting held on 26th July 2017 – to agree and sign (see attached)

4. Chairman’s Report, Minute Update and Other Matters Arising – to receive

5. Public Participation – to allow questions or comments from the public on any item on the agenda

6. Neighbourhood Plan – to receive an update on progress (see attached)

7. Planning Applications notified by Weymouth & Portland Borough Council – to consider a) Standard List of Planning Applications (attached) b) Commons Act 2006, s38 – Verne Common (attached) c) Any other applications received subsequent to the publishing of this agenda

8. Planning Contravention Issues – to receive reports a) Bicycle at Cheyne Weares

9. Planning Applications notified by Dorset County Council – to consider

10. Former Brackenbury Infants School – to consider the following motion from Cllr. Grieve, “that the Council nominates Brackenbury Infants School and Community Nursery as a Community Asset and delegates to Cllr. Grieve the preparing and submission of the final version of the nomination form, subject to Proper Officer considerations.” (see attached)

2

11. Exclusion of Press and Public (discretionary) “That pursuant to the provisions of Section 1(2) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for Agenda Item(s) … by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted.”

12. Date of Next Meeting The Committee’s next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 27th September 2017, at Easton Methodist Church Hall, Easton starting at 7.00 pm.

3 PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL

PLANNING & HIGHWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT EASTON METHODIST CHURCH HALL, EASTON ON WEDNESDAY, 26TH JULY 2017 AT 7.00 PM

PRESENT: Councillors Charlie Flack (Chairman), Jo Atwell, Susan Cocking, Lucy Grieve, Sue Lees, Ray Nowak (from 7.20 pm), Sandra Reynolds and Rod Wild

IN ATTENDANCE: Ian Looker (Town Clerk), Andy Matthews (Neighbourhood Plan Working Group) and nine members of the public

2596 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Cllrs. Jim Draper, Chris Gover and David Thurston.

2597 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Mr Matthews declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6 – Neighbourhood Plan as a trustee of the MEMO project.

Cllr. Reynolds declared a pecuniary interest and Cllr. Wild a non-pecuniary interest in application 17/451/FUL – 50 Grove Road.

2598 – MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29TH JUNE 2017 Minute 2591(f) should read, “… arouse widespread public concern.”

With this alteration the minutes were formally agreed and signed as a correct record.

2599 – CHAIRMAN’S REPORT AND OTHER MATTERS ARISING Cllr. Flack reported progress on the applications outstanding as follows:-

Application No Town Decision Borough Decision 15/767/FUL Objection Pending 16/142/FUL Objection Pending 16/501/VOC Objection Pending 17/037/OFF No Objection Pending 17/082/FUL Objection Pending 17/083/ADV Objection Pending 17/323/FUL Objection Pending 17/270/OUT No Objection Pending 17/017/RES Objection Pending 17/371/OUT Objection Pending 17/360/FUL No Objection Approved

He next advised on the progress of applications that had been brought to the meeting of 29th June 2017:-

17/291/FUL No Objection Pending 17/292/LBC No Objection Pending 17/462/OFF Objection Approved 17/372/FUL Objection Pending 17/419/FUL No Objection Pending 17/420/FUL No Objection Pending 17/501/FUL Objection Pending a) Minute 2588 – 17/323/FUL: Underhill Junior School Cllr. Grieve added that the architect would be submitting revised plans. b) Minute 2588(a) – Removal of Public Payphones Cllr. Lees said she had not yet pursued this.

2600 – PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was none at this point in the agenda.

2601 – NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Mr Matthews said the responses to the Heritage and Character consultation had been few but detailed. For details of the responses he referred to his agenda paper and another by Paul Weston.

Aecom had carried out an initial review of the development sites. Mr Weston was preparing a housing policy to be brought to the Planning Committee in August.

It was now likely that a land trust meeting would take place instead of the scheduled September Management Committee meeting. Instead a Plan workshop would be held later in the month.

(Cllr. Nowak joined the meeting.)

2602 – CONSULTATION ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS NOTIFIED BY WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL Having considered each application in turn, the Advisory Committee agreed the following observations:- a) 17/387/FUL – Land east of 25 Sweet Hill Road – Erect detached garage with workshop over OBJECTION, on the grounds of overdevelopment and intrusion on neighbouring properties (ref. ENV 16) b) 17/427/RES – Land opposite 130-165 Avalanche Road – Erect ten two- storey cottages and access road with relocation of remaining allotments to land at the rear of the site OBJECTION, on the grounds of concern that the new allotments site remains contaminated and contains Japanese knotweed. The Committee requests that the developer provide an adequate allotments space instead. It also noted that this application is not in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan. c) 17/451/FUL – 50 Grove Road – Extension and alterations to building and change of use from A4 to form 8 residential units and erect detached garage block

2 OBJECTION, on the grounds of loss of amenity. The Committee was concerned that the highways officer had not been consulted. d) 17/552/FUL – 125A Reforne – Erect side extension to dwelling NO OBJECTION e) 17/410/FUL – 154 – Demolition of existing garage / stores and erect single-storey cottage with link to existing flats NO OBJECTION, subject to the comments of the conservation officer f) 17/421/FUL – All Saints Church, Straits – Installation of bollards across driveway Cllrs. Atwell, Nowak and Wild declared non-pecuniary interests. NO OBJECTION, subject to the emergency services having a key to the bollards g) 17/485/FUL – Portland Marina, 6 Hamm Beach Road – Erection of boat workshop building with mast rack and formation of shot-blasting bay NO OBJECTION h) 17/501/FUL – Hut 45, access track to Fields 758 and 766 – 769, – Replacement beach hut (retrospective) OBJECTION, on the grounds that:-

1) The new Hut 45 as built contravenes condition 2 of the Decision Notice for application 16/596/FUL in several respects, including: a) it is higher b) it is deeper c) it is wider d) the South East elevation has an upper window, whereas no window was approved e) the double door in the South East elevation is not in the position indicated in the approved drawings f) the upper window in the North West elevation is of a different design to that in the approved drawing g) the lower window in the North West elevation is larger than that in the approved drawing h) solar panels have been fitted to the roof. 2) The current Hut 45 may contravene condition 4 of the Decision Notice in that owners of neighbouring huts claim to have evidence that Hut 45 has been used for occupation at nighttime. 3) Hut 45 in its current form contravenes ENV1 of the adopted Local Plan in that it harms “the character, special qualities and natural beauty of the … Heritage Coast, including its characteristic landscape quality and diversity … and sense of tranquillity and remoteness.” ENV1 states that such developments “will not be permitted.” ENV1 also states that “development that significantly adversely affects the character or visual quality of the local landscape … will not be permitted.” It is the Committee’s view that Hut 45 in its present form is such a development.

3 4) ENV1 further states that “development should be … designed so that it does not detract from and, where reasonable, enhances the local landscape character.” Hut 45 as it stands contravenes this principle. 5) Further ENV1 states that “appropriate measures will be required to moderate the adverse effects of development on the landscape.” In objecting to this application the Committee believes it is taking such measures. 6) Hut 45 as it stands also contravenes ENV10, which states that “all development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness. Development should be informed by the character of the site and its surroundings.” The Committee is strongly of the opinion that the impact of Hut 45 on the character of its site and surroundings is negative. 7) The current design of Hut 45 goes completely against ENV12 which states that “the general design should be in harmony with the adjoining buildings and the area as a whole” and “the scale, mass … should reflect the purpose for which the building is proposed.” Hut 45 does not blend in with the design of other beach huts in a number of respects and its scale and mass do not reflect those of a beach hut for daytime recreational use. 8) Hut 45 also contravenes ENV16 in that it has “an overbearing impact”, particularly on a neighbouring listed fisherman’s hut. 9) Section 13 of the application form has been answered incorrectly, because the site is an SSSI. 10) The design contravenes the letter and spirit of the Revised Supplementary Planning Guidance for Portland Beach Huts, especially section 3.3.2, which states “… minor extensions to Beach Huts in non- sensitive locations might be acceptable.” [emphasis added] g) 17/537/FUL – Hut 11, Field 758, access track to Fields 758 and 766 – 769, Portland Bill – Erection of larger replacement beach hut OBJECTION, on the grounds that it is a significant increase in size on the existing hut, whereas the Revised Supplementary Planning Guidance for Portland Beach Huts states at section 3.3.2, “…minor extensions to Beach Huts in non-sensitive locations might be acceptable.”

2603 – PLANNING CONTRAVENTION ISSUES CHEYNE WEARES RESOLVED – that L’n’O’s Bistro be asked to remove their bicycle from the site.

2604 – CONSULTATION ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS NOTIFIED BY DORSET COUNTY COUNCIL There were none.

2605 – PLANNING MEETING VENUES RESOLVED – that future meetings of the Committee be held at community halls on the Island.

2606 – ADDITIONAL ITEM Cllr. Atwell raised several queries concerning hedge-trimming and highways that she had received from a resident. Members suggested possible solutions. 4 2607 – DATE OF NEXT MEETING The Committee’s next meeting is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, 23rd August 2017 at Easton Methodist Church Hall, Easton, starting at 7.00 pm.

The meeting ended at 9.40 pm.

Signed …………………………………….. Dated……………………… (Chair)

5 Agenda Item 4

MINUTE UPDATE

a) Minute 2599 – 17/270/OUT: Portland Lodge From the Planning Officer:-

“I write in respect of the Town Council’s observations on this application. I note that the Council supports the application, but it has made comments including the suggestion that the Planning committee makes a site visit. I must advise you that the application falls within the agreed scheme of delegation and therefore whilst officers have visited the site, the planning committee will not be making a visit as it is not referred to them for determination.” b) Minute 2603 – Planning Contravention Issues: Cheyne Weares A letter was sent to L’n’O’s Bistro on 7th August.

Agenda Item 6

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Draft Development and Growth Policies Paper Attached as annex A is the draft paper prepared by Paul (Weston) to reflect analysis work undertaken following receipt of the draft site appraisal report by AECom. The report is submitted with a request for consent to proceed with policy development as recommended ahead of the Neighbourhood Plan Management Group meeting rescheduled to the 19th September 2017.It will also allow a copy of the draft report to be formally shown on the Portland Plan website ahead of this meeting. Final drafts will then be submitted to the Planning and Highways meeting of the 27th September 2017.

Heritage and Character Study Consultation Outcomes These are summarised together with further actions in Annex B

Site Appraisal Study This is currently with AECom together with draft comments from the working group and the Local Planning Authority. These comments have been taken into account in the Development and Growth Policies Paper. An agreed final version of the study will also be shown on the Portland Plan website.

Green Space Review This is continuing and the evidence being collated will inform both the Neighbourhood Plan policies and the Green Network aspects of the Local Plan review. The following areas have been identified which cover both aspects

• Parks and Gardens • Sports Fields • Allotments, Community Orchards and Gardens • Child and Young Persons Play areas • Graveyards • Heritage Paths • Heritage assets and landforms settings • Community Greens • Estate Greens

A full listing will be shown and the reasons for discounting any area will be recorded. It is planned to have a working list available on the website for further input from the community.

Overall Progress We are working towards having a draft plan available for formal submission to the Local Planning Authority by the end of the year. It is normal practice for the plan to have an informal review period ahead of this with the LPA and then public consultation.

Andy Matthews Portland Neighbourhood Plan Development and Growth Policies Purpose of Report 1. This report sets out the current position regarding the demand for and supply of development land on the Island of Portland and makes recommendations regarding the policy approach that should be taken by the Portland Neighbourhood Plan. Background 2. Neighbourhood plans are development plans, and will be used for determining planning applications. Accordingly, they can identify and allocate sites for new development including housing, employment, business use, leisure and other forms of development which the Town Council considers suitable, should it be appropriate to do so. Neighbourhood plans can also protect and safeguard land for future uses (for example open spaces) and define (or redefine) development boundaries or settlement limits for those places where some further growth may take place.

3. The larger strategic development sites will be allocated within the Local Plan and this needs to be taken into account. In the current Local Plan only three sites on Portland are allocated for specified uses1. The Town Council has the right to consider allocating further sites within the Neighbourhood Plan, particularly if it is considered that policies within the Local Plan do not offer sufficient criteria to guide the development of sites in place of an allocation.

4. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) confirms that a neighbourhood plan can allocate development sites, subject to meeting the required appraisals, assessments and viability tests2. If a neighbourhood plan does seek to allocate development sites, the NPPG requires the local planning authority to work constructively and positively with the ‘qualifying body’ (i.e. the Town Council) so that identified local need can be met.

5. It should also be noted that the NPPG addresses whether a neighbourhood plan can allocate additional or alternative sites to those in a Local Plan and sets out the criteria which apply where this option is considered. This includes the need for a qualifying body to explain and justify with robust evidence why any alternative sites are more appropriate than those in the Local Plan. Paragraph 044 ends by stating that “Should there be a conflict between a policy in a neighbourhood plan and a policy in a Local Plan, section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to become part of the development plan.”

6. The case for including site allocations in the Neighbourhood Plan, is that it will provide developers, service providers, the local planning authority and residents with more certainty about what sites are likely to come forward in the future, in what order and for what purpose. In short, by identifying specific sites, decisions on planning applications can be a given a clear steer immediately and the community is more likely to see the development it wants take place. It should be noted however that including site allocations could affect the local community. For example, it can be a divisive process and it could have an impact on house prices adjacent to the proposed site.

1 Land at Osprey Quay is allocated for primarily employment, leisure and ancillary retail uses and residential as part of a mixed-use scheme. The Former Hardy Complex as shown on the policies map is allocated for housing development. Land at Kingbarrow Quarry, , Verne Yeates, Inmosthay Quarry and Perryfield Quarry Butterfly Conservation Nature Reserves is allocated as part of the Portland Quarries Nature Park. 2 See paragraph 042 of the NPPG at http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/preparing-a- neighbourhood-plan-or-order/ 7. Local sensitivities, the need to apply a rigorous appraisal method and provide sufficient evidence for favouring and allocating specific sites, has discouraged many neighbourhood planners. Many Neighbourhood Plans have chosen not to allocate sites, but rather to set locally- based criteria (to complement policies in the Local Plan) by which any site that comes forward for development can be assessed and controlled.

8. The decision as to whether to allocate one or more sites should ultimately be guided by a consideration as to whether doing so is the only way to secure the type of development that is needed and wanted by the community. The Town Council has already decided that it does not want to rely solely on the Local Plan and the local planning authority to determine future development on Portland. This paper explores the efficacy of either allocating sites or setting criteria-based policy, to guide development to appropriate locations, in the context of the local issues and opportunities on Portland and what the community wants to see happen.

Planning Progress 9. The Neighbourhood Plan has progressed satisfactorily since work really got going in 2014. By the middle of 2016 the evidence base was in place and its findings had informed the Plan’s topics, aims and objectives. All through the process, the community has been consulted and the views and aspirations of local people have been taken into account.

10. The latest Local Plan3 was adopted in 2015, although the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group had found it, with only three site-specific policies for Portland, lacking in terms of providing a relevant strategic context for neighbourhood planning on Portland. Indeed, in Mid-2015 the Steering Group had considered whether it should commission its own strategic planning framework that could manifest itself in a form development plan or ‘masterplan’ for the Island and include site allocations.

11. It was decided however that this may not be necessary once the local planning authority committed to a full review of the Local Plan. In finding the Local Plan sound in 2015, the Inspector recommended that an early review should be undertaken, primarily because the Local Plan was not robust enough in demonstrating a five-year supply of housing.

12. The Local Plan Review got underway early in 2017. Whilst housing numbers and potential sites was a focus, the local planning authority has also taken the opportunity to look at other aspects where recent evidence or Government policy changes has had an impact on the 2015 Plan. These include: a more logical assessment of green areas; the changing nature of employment and growth opportunities; new Government housing initiatives; climate change and erosion and sustainable energy. Many of them are matters of a strategic nature that have an impact too, on neighbourhood planning for Portland.

13. The Local Plan Review is scheduled to be completed by 2019. The first stage of the Review was an Issues and Options document which was the subject of a district-wide consultation during February and March 2017. A dialogue has been maintained between the Portland Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and the local planning authority. This is enabling the Steering Group to frame its approach and policies for Portland in the knowledge of what is emerging from the Local Plan Review and to influence that Review from a Portland Neighbourhood Plan perspective.

14. With this relationship established, the Steering Group has felt more confident in proceeding with policy development. During the first part of 2017 it commissioned: 1. A Heritage and Character Assessment4 – an objective study to describe and articulate what is special and distinctive about a Portland by identifying recognisable patterns of elements or characteristics that make one landscape different from another. Its purpose is to ensure

3 https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/media/209581/West-Dorset-Weymouth--Portland-Local-Plan- 2015/pdf/West_Dorset__Weymouth___Portland_Local_Plan_2015.pdf 4 https://www.portlandplan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PCP-Portland-HCA-low-res.pdf that development proposals respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. 2. A Site Appraisal Report5 - an independent and objective assessment of the sites that were considered available for inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan, providing a clear assessment of the suitability of each of the sites for potential housing development. The Site Appraisal Report has significantly influenced what follows in this paper. Strategic Context 15. The Local Plan Review process is still far from compete. The Initial Issues and Options Consultation document (February 2017) does however provide an indication of how the Local Plan may evolve.

Growth Options 16. A major purpose of the Review, as the Local Plan Inspector explained, is “to identify additional land capable of meeting housing needs to the end of the current plan period” (i.e. to 2031) “as well as the broad location for development in the five-year period thereafter” (i.e. to 2036). The Inspector did not recommend that any specific locations in Weymouth or on Portland should be examined for their future growth potential. However, the need to look forward for a further five years, requires the local planning authority to consider what additional growth will be required to meet the needs of , and where, over the extended plan period to 2036.

Housing Development 17. The overall need for housing across the Local Plan area between 2011 and 2031 is calculated as 15,500 net additional dwellings. The average annualised requirement is for 775 new homes per annum. The starting point for the Review is that provision needs to be made to accommodate this level of housing development for a further five years (i.e. 3,875 additional new homes for the period 2031 to 2036). If the currently estimated shortfall to 2031 is added, it indicates that the Review must make provision for at least another 4,520 new homes overall, if to adequately cover the period to 2036. The Review therefore has to identify sufficient additional land to accommodate at least this level of housing growth.

Employment Land 18. The overall demand for employment land across the Local Plan area between 2011 and 2031 is estimated as 60 hectares. The updated requirement for employment land for the period 2013 to 2036 is for between 62 and 63 hectares. The identified supply of employment land in the Local Plan exceeds the projected demand. On that basis, there is no need to allocate any additional employment land as part of the Review. However, provision of employment land as part of any larger development sites may however be sought to provide a balance of land uses. The emerging strategic economic plan identifies Dorchester, Weymouth and Portland as the ‘core area’ for growth.

Distribution of Development 19. The Local Plan recognises a three-tier hierarchy of settlements. To meet development needs up until 2036, the Review must consider the future development needs of the settlements in the first and second tiers of the settlement hierarchy. It does consider that eight settlements in the top two tiers of the settlement hierarchy are likely to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional growth now proposed. For settlements in the third tier of the hierarchy (mainly the larger villages), the Review envisages local needs generally being met through development within DDBs6 and through neighbourhood planning.

5 Link to Site Assessment Report on website 6 DDBs = Defined Development Boundaries The Settlement Hierarchy and Portland 20. Portland is treated by the current Local Plan as a single entity which falls within the second tier of the settlement hierarchy, therefore identifying it as one of the ‘market and coastal towns’ which would be a focus for future development. However, the Review has recognised that ‘Portland’ is not a town as such, but a collection of settlements that together support a range of services typically found in a town. “It may be clearer [to make] reference to ‘the settlements on Portland’ rather than the ‘coastal town’ of Portland. There are considered to be eight settlements on Portland, which are Castletown, , Easton; ; Grove; Southwell; Wakeham and Weston”7. This down-grading of Portland will likely mean that the next version of the Local Plan will not include a strategic target of housing numbers or the strategic allocation of sites for the Portland neighbourhood plan area.

Green Infrastructure Network 21. A green infrastructure network will be identified, which will be given significant protection from development. In establishing the network, there will be a review of existing designations. To define the green infrastructure network, a series of categories will be established to identify different elements and their function and benefit within the network.

Environmental Constraints on Portland 22. The Review recognises that any consideration of future development options for Portland must be done in the context of the substantial environmental constraints on the Island, which include: • the World Heritage Site • the Heritage Coast (from along ) • Chesil & The Fleet Special Area of Conservation (SAC) • the to Studland Cliffs SAC • areas at risk of flooding • Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) • Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) • Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site (RIGS) • Scheduled Monuments • the whole of the Island being an area of archaeological potential • Conservation Areas at Fortuneswell, Grove, Easton and Weston Possible Development Sites 23. In considering the extent of future growth options on Portland, the Review process has involved an initial 360-degree search of all possible development site options around the main settlements, which is taken to mean outside of the current ‘defined development boundaries’8. Unsuitable options were discounted at an early stage, through an initial site sieving exercise and sustainability appraisal. The conclusion of the first filter of site options is that “there are no significant opportunities around the settlements of Castletown, Easton, Fortuneswell and Grove”, largely due to the combination of different environmental constraints. Two sites have been identified for further consideration. At this stage, no commitment is being made to the development of any individual site or group of options. • Site at eastern end of Weston Street - possibly 50 dwellings • Site south of Southwell - possibly 130 dwellings

7 Joint Local Plan Review for , Weymouth and Portland, Initial Issues and Options Consultation, February 2017 8 Defined development boundaries (DDBs) were carried forward to the 2015 Local Plan from previously adopted local plans. DDBs define the areas within which development will generally be accepted. There are 12 DDBs on Portland. Policy SUS2 of the Local Plan states: “Within the defined development boundaries residential, employment and other development to meet the needs of the local area will normally be permitted. Outside defined development boundaries, development will be strictly controlled……..” https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/media/209581/West-Dorset-Weymouth--Portland-Local-Plan- 2015/pdf/West_Dorset__Weymouth___Portland_Local_Plan_2015.pdf 24. It should be noted that these sites along with many other planning “issues and options”, including asking the question “are there any brownfield sites on Portland which may be suitable for residential development?”, were the subject of a consultation exercise associated with the Local Plan Review in February/March 2017.

Community Reaction 25. Portland Town Council along with the people and businesses of Portland were invited to respond to the local planning authority’s site assessment and to comment generally on the growth and development options. Several statutory consultees were also asked to give an opinion. The initial analysis of the Consultation Response shows little support for either of the two identified greenfield sites.

26. The basis of many of the objections received echoes the issues identified in the site appraisal i.e.: • Possible impact on SAC, SSSI and SNCI, World Heritage Site, Portland Coastline, scheduled monument and conservation area • The entire site is currently designated as safeguarded mineral within Site at eastern end of the Minerals Strategy (Both parts of site lie within an extant mineral Weston Street planning permission) • Pressure on existing infrastructure • Loss of green corridor and strategic gap • Landscape impact - impact on Portland Coastline, SNCI and scheduled monument Site south of Southwell • Loss of agricultural land and wildlife habitats • May prejudice development of adjoining mineral site (with pp)

27. As regards the general approach to growth and housing development on Portland, analysis of the response to the consultation, done in preparing this report, indicates: • There is little support for a higher level of growth than has been the average on Portland over the past five years (45 dwellings per year) • The major ‘issues’ that must be taken into account when considering development options are: the need to protect the natural environment, the capacity of the road network, and the impact on community infrastructure such as community facilities, health and education • It is believed that there remains significant development potential and capacity on brownfield sites (several sites have been suggested) Recent Development Activity 28. According to the Council’s Background Paper9, since 1991, the population of Portland has decreased by approximately 2% from 13,190 to 12,966, caused largely by the loss of the Royal Navy.

Portland Housing Completions Total Affordable 97/00 49 00/05 266 05/10 403 10/11 4 11/12 104 6 12/13 19 19 13/14 44 15 14/15 24 7 15/16 40 17 16/17 953 64

9 Joint Local Plan Review for West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland, Portland Background Paper Issues and Options Consultation Version, February 2017 29. In the period 1997/98 to 2016, approximately 1,000 dwellings have been completed. The annual average delivery rate currently stands at 45 dwellings per year for the five-year period 2011/12 to 2015/16. Since 2011/12, there have been only 64 affordable housing completions. Development Intentions 30. Appendix A to this report sets out the current commitments, applications and expressions of interest on a site by site basis. In summary:

No. of Sites Likely Yield (dwgs) Sites with Extant Permission (2016-) 44 702 Sites subject to Planning Applications (Jun 2017) 6 92 Other sites nominated for SHLAA 102015 26 177 Additional sites nominated for SHLAA 2016 6 49 Disposal Sites C11 17 93 1,037

31. This indicative level of ‘development intention’, is likely sufficient for the local planning authority to be content that Portland’s contribution to the overall target is acceptable and consistent with the Local Plan’s approach of modest growth on Portland largely because of the perceived local employment opportunities and the environmental constraints.

32. This means that, subject to further discussion and agreement with the local planning authority, the policy approach to housing numbers and sites that can be taken by the Portland Neighbourhood Plan can be based on local needs, demands and opportunities. Needs and Demands Housing 33. The Steering Group, having reviewed the local evidence including the response to community consultations, has agreed that the following should provide the context for the local housing strategy and policies in the Neighbourhood Plan: • There are around 300 people on the housing waiting list with a Portland local connection • These are mainly younger families looking for 1 or 2 bedroomed properties • There are a number (unknown) of elderly people who are currently living in larger homes and who wish to downsize • Easton is one of the most accessible places in Dorset for services • There are large brownfield sites in Underhill which with a joined-up approach could yield substantive numbers • Local authorities and the Health Service are looking to rationalise their estate • Southwell School (redundant) and St Georges School both occupy large land blocks • The HCA are seeking shared equity arrangements • There is potential for a local Community Land Trust to play a part • The Local Plan Review has identified potential housing development sites in areas where the community infrastructure is lacking, although access to public transport is good • These areas are also close to areas identified as of landscape importance and potential biodiversity green space. • There is a general sensitivity about large scale building on perceived green space The Steering Group has concluded that housing land allocation should be based around smaller numbers located in proximity to Easton; and should find ways to join up the private and public- sector land offer, to maximise the brownfield development potential.

10 SHLAA = Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Employment 34. As regards the context for the local employment strategy and policies in the Neighbourhood Plan: • Dorset LEP has identified the employment area on Portland as being able to yield an additional 3,000 jobs. This is in line with previous employment levels enjoyed via the MoD and Navy. • Employment land allocated in the Port area, was based on previous areas developed and green space designations occurred largely independent of an assessment of future employment needs. • There is scope to affect a realignment of boundaries to yield a more visible and cohesive offer • Foster clustering and innovation • The Port has access to limited financial resources which impacts on their ability to market the land holding they have • The HCA11 has had limited marketing success with Osprey Quay • The intention is the visibility of the Western Dorset Growth Corridor will help with these constraints • Devolution and the creation of Unitary Councils and a Combined Authority will mean that the link between business growth and service provision will be more direct • SMEs and entrepreneurial approaches should be supported The Steering Group has concluded that employment land allocation should find ways to maximise the opportunity from the existing land offer and improve its visibility; and integrate SME and entrepreneurial activity in proximity to identified centres to improve their viability. Additional Land Supply 35. The Steering Group further concluded that it may be in the best interests of future development and growth on Portland that it should give serious consideration to including policies that identify specific development areas and perhaps go as far as allocating sites within the Neighbourhood Plan. This begins with a thorough and objective appraisal of the options.

36. To extend its knowledge and awareness of the development potential of land beyond that committed and that identified by the SHLAA on Portland, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group commissioned a Site Appraisal Study and Report. The Study appraised ten sites nominated by the Steering Group. All these sites are either in or close to existing settlements areas and have had a recent use. Much of the land in question can be categorised as being ‘brownfield’. All of it is previously-used land, whose future is in question.

37. The full Site Appraisal Report, which is available on-line12, considered that four sites are most appropriate for taking forward for housing through the Portland Neighbourhood Plan. “This is due to the capacity of the sites to deliver housing, their location, their availability, and the limited number of constraints present at the sites.”

38. The four sites are as follows: • New Brackenbury School (possible 11 dwellings) • St. George’s School (possible 57 dwellings) • Southwell School (possible 34 dwellings) • Royal Manor School (possible 58 dwellings) 39. In addition to these sites, four further sites are considered as being “potentially suitable” for taking forward for the purposes of the Neighbourhood Plan. These latter sites however have significant constraints, including relating to environmental constraints, that would need to be addressed.

11 HCA = Homes and Communities Agency 12 Link to Site Assessment Report on website 40. Of the most suitable development sites, both the former Royal Manor School and Southwell School site were the subject of recent (July 2017) community consultations carried out by the HCA. For the Royal Manor School site, 52 new houses and apartments are proposed, providing a mix of dwellings from 2 bed apartments to 4 bed houses. 50% of the homes on the site would be affordable Starter Homes. For the Southwell School site, 58 new houses and apartments are proposed, providing a mix of dwellings from 2 bed apartments to 4 bed houses. 50% of the homes on the site would be affordable Starter Homes. Conclusions 41. It is accepted that sites where development has begun over the past few years and sites with planning permission have established their future uses for housing or employment purposes. Much of this commitment is within the defined development boundaries of the Local Plan. The local planning authority in assessing planning applications, has sought to protect the environmentally sensitive parts of the Island. Although some development has been approved outside of the defined development boundaries because of the lack of evidence of a five-year supply.

42. The Steering Group’s own surveys have established that there remains a substantial area of brownfield land on the Island. The Site Assessment Report confirms that some of it is developable for housing.

43. It can be concluded therefore that: • There appears to sufficient developable land available on Portland for the Neighbourhood Plan to put policies in place, if it is thought necessary, to protect all environmentally significant and sensitive sites and valuable ‘local green space’ • Current housing and employment commitments are likely to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Local Plan • Housing policy must focus on addressing local needs as well as opportunities • The Neighbourhood Plan objective of focussing development on brownfield sites and previously used land is achievable • If sites are to be allocated, there is a choice to be made as to which sites and what type of development is acceptable • Additional study and consultation will be necessary to aid selection of the ‘best’ and preferred sites for development • Development proposals on some of the most suitable development sites, such as the former school sites, are well advanced and have been received positively by the community • There is an ‘issue’ as to what policies will be appropriate for the future of ‘other’ brownfield sites • There should be a role for community-led housing initiatives 44. These all lead to the overall conclusion that it would not only be time- and resource-consuming to allocate sites within the Neighbourhood Plan for housing development, but it is probably unnecessary given the extent of commitments and the advanced stage of proposals for other sites that are suitable and have the community’s support. It is important however that the Neighbourhood Plan should include criteria-based housing policies to ensure that future housing development delivers the type of housing that is required.

45. As regards employment land, there is sufficient land already earmarked in the Local Plan. The draft Neighbourhood Plan needs to concentrate on policies that will help make sites more appealing, encourage business development and growth in the interests of boosting the local economy and creating much need good quality local jobs.

46. Recent studies have highlighted how unique, important and vulnerable the natural environment of Portland is. The Neighbourhood Plan can include policies to ensure that the impact of future development on the natural environment is minimal. The Site Assessment Report, in indicating that several of the sites put forward by the Steering Group were potentially suitable for development, also confirmed that some were not. The Neighbourhood Plan should not leave these sites ‘exposed’ and unprotected. It is a beholden on the Portland Neighbourhood Plan to set policy, based on the findings of recent technical reports, that will facilitate an appropriate and positive future role for the Verne, Frances Quarry Area, Weston Road Farmhouse and the site at Moorfield Road, in particular. To that end, discussions with the embryo Community Land Trust have begun. Recommended Policy Approach 47. The four school sites deemed suitable for development are all within the current DDBs. This seems to reinforce the current Local Plan policy position that “residential, employment and other development to meet the needs of the local area” should take place within the DDBs, with a presumption against development taking place outside of the DDBs, unless it is for specific and fully justified purposes. On that basis, it is suggested that the current Local Plan’s policies, SUS1 and SUS2, are adequate in content and extent for Portland.

48. If this is accepted, it will be important to ensure that the same or similar policies are in the next version of the Local Plan. This is probably best achieved by re-confirming or re-defining the Portland’s DDBs and their purpose, in collaboration with the local planning authority and including an appropriate DDB policy in the Neighbourhood Plan. It will be even more important to ensure that policies are in place in the Local and/or Neighbourhood Plan to protect land outside the DDB’s from inappropriate development.

49. Where the Local Plan may be considered inadequate is the lack of recognition of the specifics of the Portland housing market. The table below demonstrates the extent to which the Local Plan’s policies address Portland’s neighbourhood planning objectives for housing and business development. It suggested that only the employment training objective is satisfactorily addressed.

Portland Issue NP Objective Local Plan Housing Development Character of development Recognise distinct character of ENV11 The Pattern of Streets and Spaces settlements No reference to historic character Community Land Trust Facilitate exception site development HOUS2 Affordable Housing Exception Sites No reference to CLT Design Ensure development is appropriate in scale ENV12 The Design and Positioning of Buildings and type No reference to heritage or vernacular Local housing need Ensure housing mix reflects current local HOUS3 Open Market Housing Mix housing needs No refence to local housing need and market Second homes Prevent new dwellings becoming second No relevant policy homes Self-build and custom Encourage self-build and other affordable No relevant policy housing housing initiatives Small dwellings Ensure there is a good proportion of small HOUS3 Open Market Housing Mix dwellings on new developments No refence to addressing imbalance in supply Business and Employment Development Enterprise hub Identify local building suitable for ECON1 Provision of Employment conversion No reference to business hub New enterprises Facilitate SME’s and start-up units ECON3 Protection of Other Employment Sites No specific reference to start-ups Northern Arc Masterplan approach ECON2 Protection of Key Employment Sites PORT1 Osprey Quay No recognition of Port or northern arc Training Support training-related development COM6 Provision of Educ. and Training Facilities Does support new or replacement facilities

50. It is recommended that the Neighbourhood Plan includes policies: Regarding housing: • Recognising the different character areas on Portland, referring to the HCA • Linking future provision to a thorough assessment of local housing need and addressing recognisable imbalances in supply • Specifically tailored to the current intentions of the CLT (if it has discernible intentions) probably in the form of an exception site policy • Encouraging innovative solutions to affordable housing provision including self-build and custom-built developments in appropriate locations • Discouraging the proliferation of second homes 51. Regarding employment: • Safeguarding existing employment sites • Supporting new employment development particularly new business hubs/centres to provide for SMEs and start-up businesses • Supporting a masterplan approach to the northern arc that achieves a rationalisation of land uses

52. Regarding specific sites: • Hardy Complex – supporting a more environmentally-friendly and less visually intrusive scheme including full/partial demolition of the block • The Verne – establishing the constraints and criteria that any development would need to meet (with reference to the Heritage Character Assessment), perhaps in association with the Community Land Trust • Frances Quarry area –protecting wildlife habitats • Moorfield Road – ensuring the site is protected because of its wildlife value and as part of the green gap • Weston Road Farmhouse – protecting the site’s historic and wildlife value and as part of the green gap

PW/PNP/Aug17 Appendix A Portland Housing Sites mid-2017

Sites with Extant Permission June 2017

Per September 2016 Report No. Dwgs 1A, Avalanche Road 1 2 East Street 1 28 Fortuneswell 2 52, Park Estate Road 1 72, Easton Street 3 8 Rufus Way, Grove 1 9, Rufus Way 1 Adj 44 Chiswell (site of former 34a Chiswell) 1 Adj. 88 Avalanche Road 10 Adj. Westcliff House, Weston Rd 1 Alma Terrace 11 Between 12 & 14 Woolcombe Road, Weston 3 Castle Court Site, Osprey Quay (u/c) 39 The Hardy Complex, Main Block, Castle Road 363 Land adj 19(b), Clements Lane 1 Land adjacent to 33, Park Road 1 land adjacent to 8, Moorfield Road 1 Land at Bransbarrow, Brandy Row, Chiswell 1 Land at North End of Perryfield Work, Pennsylvania Road 6 Land r/o, 95 to 127, Reforne (built) 4 Land to east of 35, Park Road 1 Land to rear of 6, Southwell 1 Land to south of 62 to 72, Weston Street 8 Osprey Quay/Castle Court (u/c) 31 Perryfield Works, Pennsylvania Road, Easton 9 Rear of 20 East Street 1 Rear of 44C-62, Weston Street 1 Royal Victoria Lodge, Victoria Square 4 TOPE/020 Workshops, Bottomcoombe Works, Easton 62 Total 570 Since Sep 2016 PA Ref. No. Dwgs Bumpers Lane WP/17/0017/RES 71 49 Grove Road WP/17/00183/FUL 3 r/o 1-3 Belle Vue Cottages WP/17/00093/FUL 1 Land north of 54 New Street WP/17/00076/RES 3 103 Fortuneswell WP/16/00944/FUL 6 Land opp. 139-165 Avalanche Road WP/16/00783/FUL 10 Public Conveniences, High St, Southwell WP/16/00692/FUL 1 Land r/o 132-144 Wakeham WP/16/00693/OUT 2 8a Sweet Hill Road WP/16/00394/OUT 1 Maritime House, WP/16/00506/OFF 1 Land rear of Ventnor, Verne Common Road WP/16/00286/FUL 8 Grove Infants School, Grove Road WP/16/00008/FUL 5 6 Close WP/15/00392/FUL 2 Rear 9-11 Easton Street WP/15/00202/FUL 1 Brandy Row Workshops WP/15/00368/FUL 9 151 Weston Street WP/15/00619/OUT 8 132

Sites with Pending Planning Applications

Site: PA Ref. Possible Yield Land to South of Augusta Road WP/15/00767/FUL 22 affordable Land r/o, 82b-82d Wakeham WP/17/00371/OUT 5 bungalows Underhill School WP/17/00323/FUL 21 dwellings Portland Lodge Hotel, Easton Lane WP/17/00270/OUT 24 flats Council Offices, Fortuneswell WP/17/00037/OFF COU to dwellings 8 units The Windmills, Park Road WP/16/00142/FUL 12 dwellings (in lieu of previously approved care home) 92

Sites Identified Within SHLAA 2015 Not Identified Above

Ref: Site: yrs 0-5 6-10 11-15 WP/TOPE/001 Land r/o 23 Moorfield Road 2 0 0 - 2 WP/TOPE/002 Land r/o Fancys Close, Reforne 5 0 0 - 5 WP/TOPE/003 Land at Reforne 0 3 0 - 3 WP/TOPE/010 Offices & Stone Factory 0 0 18 - 18 WP/TOPE/014 Glen Caravan Park 0 0 5 - 5 WP/TOPE/015 Land adj. Junior School 16 0 0 - 16 WP/TOPE/018 67 New Street 1 0 0 - 4 WP/TOPW/002 Land beside 1-13 Courtlands Road 4 0 0 - 4 WP/TOPW/003 Land r/o Avalanche Road 0 5 0 - 5 WP/TOPW/005 Sea Mist, Sweethill Road 0 0 0 2 2 WP/TOPW/023 Land r/o 119-145 Avalanche Road 0 10 0 - 10 WP/TOPW/024 Parking area Bowers Rd & Four Acres 0 4 0 - 4 WP/TOPW/029 17 Sweethill Road 3 0 0 - 3 WP/TOPW/016 Land north west of Croft Road 4 0 0 - 4 WP/TOPW/022 Land to the r/o Branscombe Close 0 5 0 - 5 WP/UNDE/001 Underhill Methodist Church 0 10 0 - 10 WP/UNDE/002 Land to the west of Fortuneswell 0 3 0 - 3 WP/UNDE/003 Garages adj. 105-107 East Weare Road 2 0 0 - 2 WP/UNDE/004 Land adj. 2-14 Amelia Close 5 0 0 - 5 WP/UNDE/005 Garages adj. 31-39 Coronation Road 2 0 0 - 2 WP/UNDE/009 Green Shutters Inn 3 0 0 - 3 WP/UNDE/010 Land r/o 17-19 Clovens Road 0 7 0 - 7 WP/UNDE/014 Hambro Car Park 10 0 0 - 10 WP/UNDE/016 Land adj. to 44 Leet Close 0 10 0 - 10 WP/UNDE/017 Boscawen House, Castle Road 10 0 0 - 10 WP/UNDE/018 Islanders Club for Young People 0 25 0 - 25 177

Sites Identified Within SHLAA 2016 Not Otherwise Identified

WP/TOPE/031 45 Wakeham 5 WP/TOPW/011 Land between 21-25 Weston St 6 WP/TOPW/030 Avalanche Rd 8 WP/TOPW/031 NE Corner Southwell BP 8 WP/TOPW/032 South of Southwell BP 7 WP/TOPE/032 41-47 Wakeham 15 49

Sites in LP Review Issues and Opportunities (Feb 2017):

Possible (subject to consultation): P1 Eastern end of Weston Street 50 Possible impact on SAC, SSSI and SNCI, World Heritage Site, Portland Coastline, scheduled monument and conservation area. P2 South of Sweet Hill Road, Southwell 130 Landscape impact - impact on Portland Coastline, SNCI and scheduled monument 180 Discounted: Reason: A South of Castletown Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle of Portland SSSI, and scheduled monuments. Steep topography. B New Ground Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle of Portland SSSI and nearby SNCI C West Weare Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle of Portland SSSI and World Heritage Site. Area also vulnerable to coastal erosion. D Bowers, Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle E Inmosthay of Portland SSSI and Portland (Easton) conservation F Independent Quarries area. Areas either working quarries or part of Portland Quarries Nature Park. G West of Weston Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle H Barleycrates Lane of Portland SSSI and World Heritage Site. Area in part vulnerable to coastal erosion. J Between Easton & Grove Impacts on Isle of Portland SSSI and nearby SNCI K Reap Lane Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC, Isle of Portland SSSI and World Heritage Site. Area in part vulnerable to coastal erosion. L East of Avalanche Road This area is the subject of a planning application for minerals extraction. N Freshwater Quarries Impacts on Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC Isle of Portland SSSI, World Heritage Site and nearby SNCI. Area in part vulnerable to coastal erosion.

Possible Housing Sites Identified for Disposal by Public Bodies

New Street WPBC 2 Car Park, Park Road WPBC 2 Croft Road WPBC 2 Brandy Row WPBC 1 Other Smaller (Underhill) DCC 10 17

Additional Sites Assessed by AECOM June 2017

Site Name Size (ha) Hardy Complex 5.88 Portland Hospital 2.22 New Brackenbury School 0.46 The Verne 0.45 Frances Quarry Area 2.61 Moorfield Road 6.67 St. George’s School 2.53 Weston Road Farmhouse 0.30 Southwell School 1.41 Royal Manor School 2.56

Appendix B

Map A Current DDBs

2008 DDB’s Underhill Area Southwell Business Park Grove Wide Street Easton-Weston Villages Easton Lane Bumpers Lane Portland Port Estate Weston Street Perryfield Works Southwell Portland Bill

Heritage and Character Study – Consultation Report August 2017 Purpose This report summarises details of the coverage of the consultation and responses received with an outline of further actions. The report will be held on the Portland Plan website. Content 1. Coverage and number of responses 2. Responses raising matters of material consideration and how these will be reflected in the Neighbourhood Plan. 3. Response received from the Local Planning Authority (in full) • Annex A – Copy of Notice of Consultation Further actions • Submission of areas of correction or additions to the authors AEComm for their consideration in regard to an updated report. • Inclusion of items of material consideration with the Neighbourhood Plan development

Neighbourhood Plan Working Group – August 2017

SECTION 1 Heritage and Character Study – Coverage and Response Statistics

The press release announcing the consultation period (Annex A) was published in the Dorset Evening Echo and appeared on the front cover of the July Edition of the Free Portland News. The Press Release was also promoted through local social media. Social Media Hits – 2,587 Number of Web page views – 190 Number of Down loads – 49 Approximately – 50 people viewed the hard copy report Although only 8 specific responses were received including the Local Planning Authority the absence of negative comments implies that generally people were satisfied with the content. The study will remain on the Portland Plan Website SECTION 2 – SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS RAISED The table below includes the substantive matter(s) raised by consultees during the recent consultation and sets out how the draft Neighbourhood Plan (NP) intends to address the ‘issue’ or ‘opportunity’.

Substantive Comment: Influence on the draft NP: This island has a freedom of movement you are unlikely The draft NP will focus on improvements to existing to find anywhere else, quarries, coastal paths. Why put footpaths rather than more paths, unless they have a paths through? functional value Planning application should be looked at in line with The 'Portland Heritage and Character Assessment' if the 'Portland Heritage and Character Assessment' accepted by the Town Council can be used to document. support its comments on planning applications. It will also underpin certain policies in the NP, which will, be used by the local planning authority to determine planning applications. The division into several Character Areas makes sense. The NP will recognise the history and unique Issues to be addressed and ‘sensitivity to change’ character of the different settlements and include make sound recommendations. policy intended to ensure they remain separate and I particularly support the following: different. • demonstrates an understanding of the particular history of each area • reflect the scale, density and roofline of that particular settlement; • responsive to vernacular building materials, height, scale and massing. I also support retaining gaps between each settlement. It is good to see the emphasis on retaining the history The matters raised i.e. empty property, recreation and architecture. over-emphasis on building more areas and public car parks will all be addressed in houses currently without focussing on those that are the NP empty. no reference to the sports field the car parks are essential to reducing the loss of gardens The primacy of the Portland Conservation Area This will be emphasised in the NP and revised appraisals as a key reference in any planning Heritage and character study or linked commentary considerations needs to be made clear. document The issue of Permitted Development has not been Permitted development rights can’t be changed by addressed. In a Conservation Area. These relatively the NP. The plan could identify specific areas small changes can utterly change the historic where WPBC would be encouraged to implement character of an area. Article 4 directions. Houses on the Officer's Field development do not Design and character are matters to be covered by reflect the vernacular. It should not be used by the NP. developers as a precedent for other developments elsewhere. The importance and extent of nature conservation This will be given due regard by the NP to ensure all designations should have more emphasis. The whole areas that need protection will be protected. of the island is a regionally important Geological and Geomorphological site. Underline the opportunities that the required The future of quarried areas is a policy area of the restoration of mineral sites offers to enhance NP. character. The natural environment is important to the cultural The NP will address the value of the natural associations and recreation /tourist potential, perhaps environment to the social and economic well-being more emphasis on these opportunities. of Portland Recognise opportunities for cyclepath and bridlepath The NP will help facilitate traffic-free routes. Where development possible, by making use of existing tracks/routes The whole island is of archaeological importance This will be acknowledged by the NP. I consider it to be a locally distinct feature of Portland The need to protect the unique setting of the where open countryside areas extend into settlements settlements is something that will be addressed by and when the quarries are properly restored it will be the NP. a very positive feature. Portland is known for its sparse trees cover and This will be recognised by the NP. therefore reference to more tree planting and retaining vegetated front gardens should be used more sparingly and indicate specific locations where relevant. The importance of the Stone Pier in terms of the The NP will include a policy about the old piers. shipping of stone etc needs to be recognised. Chiswell has origins in fishing. Point noted. The wide-open spaces and extensive spectacular The unique character will be recognised in any policy coastal views are key characteristics for LCA 02. relating to the Port area in the NP. The 3 settlements of Easton, Westham & Wakeham, The need to protect the setting and character of although they merge in places, there are features that settlements will be addressed in the NP. differentiate them. The non-built-up character of this area is also an important part of the setting of the conservation areas at Weston and Wakeham. There is no Conservation Area at Southwell Respecting the historic areas will influence policy in the NP. NP could encourage the designation of Conservation Area at Southwell. Need to decide whether Southwell’s heritage deserves The NP will address the need and the best way to additional protection such as a conservation area protect the Island’s heritage. designation. LCA 5 – Portland Bill and The – the The Jurassic Coast designation will be given due Jurassic coast designation goes around the entire acknowledgment in the content and policies of the coastline of the island perhaps you should re-name NP. this area or amend the plan. Need to acknowledge the undeveloped character of the area and make the point that development here would be the exception. LCA 6 – Quarries and open space –should emphasise The PQ Nature Park area will be supported and its the importance of the openness and nature development influenced by policies in the NP conservation and celebrate the Portland Quarries Nature park which is an exemplar project for GI management. Quarries are greenfield sites in the countryside, where development is generally restricted, any reference to development should be caveated as such and not treated the same as an area within a settlement.

SECTION 3 WPBC COMMENTS ON PORTLAND HERITAGE AND CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

It is appreciated that it is a mammoth task putting together a Heritage and Character study for Portland however I feel there are a few omissions and some of the ‘ issues to be addressed’ and ‘character principles’ are too generic. Principally it could be go further in capturing more of the essence of Portland particularly the very special inter relationship between the natural and built environment. It tends to focused on built character and in some of the character areas omits reference to large open areas, the undeveloped nature and views that create the unique character.

• Early on in the document there’s a need to refer to the Portland Conservation Area appraisals. These are comprehensive in the detail and history and don’t need to be replicated in the HCA however the primacy of these studies as a key reference in any planning considerations needs to be made clear.

• The planning policy context section could refer to Chapter 8 of WDWP local plan which sets out specific policies for Portland. In particular for; Osprey Quay, former Hardy Blocks, & Portland Quarries Nature Park. The green infrastructure section is also relevant as it refers to the Portland Coastline designation, Areas of local landscape Importance and Important Open Gaps. The policies maps background document https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/jointlocalplan/west/weymouth – may also be useful to refer to as it contains the reason/justification behind location of development boundaries and important open gaps.

• The importance and extent of nature conservation designations should have more emphasis. Some are mentioned but there’s not a comprehensive list (see attached). In addition on page 12 designations are referred to as ‘landscape’ designations when there are also nature conservation and geological designations. The whole of the island is a regionally important Geological and Geomorphological site. Whilst you don’t need to identify them all hi-lighting the sheer number stresses the very special natural environment and how important it is in shaping character. Particularly the wild, rugged, open, treeless character resulting from natural processes and quarrying. The constraint to development that the national and international designations create could also be made clearer.

• The document could also underline the opportunities that the required restoration of mineral sites offers to enhance character through long term management for nature conservation & public access.

• There is no reference to Heritage Coast which is an important designation.

• The natural environment is important to the cultural associations and recreation /tourist potential, perhaps more emphasis on these opportunities particularly that offered by South West / English Coastal path, water sports and other outdoor pursuits.

• Heritage Assets - archaeology is not mentioned at all when the whole island is of archaeological importance (see list of SAM’s attached). It might also be useful to refer to WHS Management Plan in relation to Jurassic coast.

• In the standardised text for managing change reference is made to an ‘historical development’ section but I couldn’t find one. Perhaps there could be a section at the beginning on heritage assets either after the nature conservation designations section or landscape character assessment section. Reference to archaeology could be made here and an overview of number and type of heritage assets on the island.

• The maps are not very clear or user friendly. Assets aren’t shown in great detail and should perhaps be broken down to show less but clearer assets on a separate map.

• Key characteristics should aim for clarity and a distilled understanding that can help frame policy in the NP and inform a planning decision rather than raise further questions. For example – why is restoration of a key characteristic and how might the general point ‘ mix of maritime land uses …and residential creates a diverse and functional urban settlement’

• In some of the issues to be addressed sections there is the phrase ‘ many of the development boundaries are adjacent to existing or previous quarries which draws the industrial character into the urban setting’ Implying that it is a negative feature that needs to be addressed. I consider it to be a locally distinct feature of Portland where open countryside areas extend into settlements and when the quarries are properly restored it will be a very positive feature. Perhaps a reference to restoration in the Character Management Principles would be useful here. My concern is that saying ‘This can be achieved through physical boundaries including settlement gateways, landscape features and defined land uses.’ could be taken to mean development ant this would put these areas under pressure. Maybe clarification that the openness is a positive feature to be retained would help clarify this.

• Similarly in the reference to the wall at HM Prison Grove as an’ issue to be addressed’. This is a defining feature of the area and a listed structure therefore – what is envisaged?. These types of phrases could be counter productive in trying to preserve character as they are open to different interpretations unless it is clarified through a narrative and policies in the NP.

• Reference is often made to retaining vegetated front gardens and trees although the historic character is described and shown in photos as dwelling being hard up to the pavement edge (eg The Verne) and well vegetated front gardens are not a defining characteristic. Portland is know for it’s sparse trees cover and therefore reference to more tree planting and retaining vegetated from gardens should be used more sparingly and indicate specific locations where relevant.

• LCA 01 - The main title should reflect the different settlements involved and so could consider ‘Underhill, Chesil & Osprey Quay.’ Text refers to A354 Portland Road but doesn’t mention the environmental designations and therefore sensitivity of environment either side plus varying characters. Page 28 – there are important surviving military buildings, for example, the Edwardian, HMS Osprey administration /communications building or early 20th century NAAFI bakery situated by Castletown stone pier; the importance of the Stone Pier in terms of the shipping of stone etc needs to be recognised. Portland Port - very limited description of heritage assets included within the port.

• LCA 02 – The wide open spaces and extensive spectacular coastal views don’t quite come through in the key characteristics. Portland Port land is not mentioned and this has a particular wild character because of the nature conservation designations and lack of public access. Although also includes some employment land.. High Angle Battery is part of a nature reserve with high level stewardship scheme in operation. It could be described as a visitor attraction rather than ‘derelict’.

• LCA 03 – the key characteristic omits commentary on the 3 settlements of Easton, Westham & Wakeham, although they merge in places there are features that differentiate them. As well as the built-up areas there are also extensive non-built-up area bounded by Easton to the north, Wakeham to the east, Weston Street to the south and Weston to the west. This area has a variety of different uses including playing fields and quarries and provides the setting for the conservation areas at Wakeham and Weston. The photograph on Page 51 is of ‘views across open green space form the Furlands towards Weston Street’ which shows the open nature of this area. The Character Management Principles on Page 55 talks about retaining settlement boundaries and preventing the coalesence of settlements, but it could say a bit more about the importance of this non built-up area in helping to achieve this. The non built-up character of this area is also an important part of the setting of the conservation areas at Weston and Wakeham. Perhaps that could be given a bit more emphasis. The area shares characteristics with LCA 06: Quarries and Open Space, but is separated from this LCA by built development along Weston Street and at Wakeham. Its inclusion within LCA 03 enables the relationship between this open area and adjoining settlements to be discussed, so this is probably the most appropriate way to draw the character areas. However, it might be helpful under LCA 03 to say that this area shares many of the characteristics of LCA 06 and that many of the Character Management Principles for LCA 06 would also be relevant here.

• LCA 4 - The Character Management Principles for Southwell refer to new builds being responsive to vernacular building materials, height, scale and massing, particularly within the Portland Conservation Area. However, there is no Conservation Area at Southwell, as recognised on Page 63. Perhaps it should say ‘…within and around the historic core of the village’. Important views are not mentioned for example the views /panorama form the south towards old Southwell, north of the island and the mainland.

• Page 65 & 66 this study should be providing the evidence to decide on whether Southwell’s heritage deserves additional protection such as a conservation area designation and if so include it as an ‘issue to be addressed’. Having done so the matter and preparation work should be a bullet point under Character Management Principles.

• Page 66, bullet point 3 is a management principle applicable across the island as well as Southwell. ; bullet point 12 should consider the a large number of non-designated assets have already been identified n the Appraisal of the Conservation areas of Portland.

• LCA 5 – Portland Bill and The Jurassic Coast – the Jurassic coast designation goes around the entire coastline of the island perhaps you should re-name this area or amend the plan. Need to acknowledge the undeveloped character of the area and make the point that development here would be the exception. Standardised text doesn’t make this distinction. One of the bullets under ‘sensitivity to change in relation to Portland Bill and the Jurassic Coastline is “The open agricultural land which provides the setting of Portland Bill and prevents the coalescence of residential infill from Southwell”. Since Southwell is the southernmost settlement on Portland, the coalescence (be it of settlements or of Southwell with buildings at the Bill, is not really an issue. Perhaps it could say something along the lines of “The open agricultural land south of Southwell, which provides the setting of the village and Portland Bill”. The Character Management Principles for Portland Bill and the Jurassic Coastline refer to “Development within the nucleated settlements”. Whilst there are some buildings and groups of buildings in this LCA, there are no settlements as such. Maybe it should say something along the lines of “Development adjacent to existing buildings or within or adjacent to existing groups of buildings should reflect the scale, density and roof line of adjacent buildings and demonstrate a strong relationship with the coast”.

• LCA 6 – Quarries and open space – not very clear from the map exactly what area this refers to. In the positive aspects of character section 1st bullet says Accessible green space in this area is characterised by disused quarries which doesn’t’ really emphasise the importance of the openness and nature conservation or celebrate the Portland Quarries Nature park which is an exemplar project for GI management. The PQNP designation including the Aspirational area should be marked on the plan and the SAM. In the issues to be addressed section the reference to ‘scarred by centuries of quarrying ‘ could be followed through into the Character Management Principles by reference to ‘restoration’ of the quarries rather than ‘development’ within the disused quarries. Quarries are greenfield sites in the countryside, where development is generally restricted therefore any reference to development should be caveated as such and not treated the same as an area within a settlement.

PORTLAND NATURE CONSERVATION AND SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS

SAC’s

Studland to Portland

Chesil & The Fleet

The marine environment is of outstanding quality and the waters surrounding Portland, including are identified as a Sensitive Marine Area by Natural in recognition of the important marine ecology.

SSSi’s

Chesil Beach & The Fleet

Isle of Portland

Portland Harbour Shore

SNCi’s

East Weare Camp SY67/027

East Weare Rifle Range SY77/028

Verne to Grove SY67/021

Verne Yeates SY67/019 Portland heights SY67/018

Grove Quarry SY67/025

France Quarry SY67/033

Yeolands Quarry SY77/032

Silklake Quarries SY67/026

Bottom Combe Quarry SY67/020

Pennsylvania Hotel SY67/024

Pennsylvania Quarries SY67/023

Portland Coastal Lawnsheds SY66/011

Southwell SY67/031

Portland Bill Quarries SY66/017

Inmosthay Quarry SE

Weston Playing Field SY67/034

LNR

Verne Yates & High Angle Battery SY67/B005

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

East Weare rifle range

The

RAF Portland, site of Rotor ear

Battery 180m E of the Naval cemetery

Portland Castle

Rufus Castle

Portland Open fields

Mesolithic sites near Culver Well

Jan Farnan

Planning & Urban Design Officer

ANNEX A - PRESS RELEASE -June 2017 Major Study Confirms Portland’s Unique Character

As part of the work on the Portland Neighbourhood Plan, a study has helped identify what makes the different parts of the Island special today. On the Town Council’s behalf, AECOM, a leading environmental consultancy, has taken a fresh look at the Portland in 2017. Their Character Assessment Report provides important, up-to-date, evidence to support the planning policies that will go in the Neighbourhood Plan. Government guidelines say neighbourhood plans should develop policies based on an understanding of the defining characteristics of an area. In doing so, policies can ensure that development responds to local character and history, and reflects the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation.

The Character Assessment Report has identified six distinct ‘character areas’ on Portland. It has made recommendations about how development needs to be controlled in the interests of protecting or enhancing their unique character.

In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between Portland Port and the Town Council the study document also now includes a separate commentary by the Port concerning their land holding which covers two of the ‘character areas’. This should be considered as part of the consultation.

Before the Neighbourhood Plan policies are written, the Town Council is giving local people an opportunity to consider the Draft Character Assessment Report and contribute their own thoughts and ideas.

The Portland Character Assessment Report will be available on the Portland Plan website (www.portlandplan.org.uk) from 9th June 2017 and the consultation period will run until 9th July 2017. You may make comment via the online form.

It will also be available via Portland Town Council’s website www.portlandtowncouncil.gov.uk

Alternatively hard copies of the report will be available at the following locations during their opening times together with forms to make comments upon.

Portland Tophill Library, Straits, Easton, DT5 1HG

Portland Town Council Offices, 52 Easton Street, DT5 1BT

Osprey Leisure Centre, Castletown, DT5 1BD.

Portland Town Council Applications

Date Valid Application No Location and Applicant and Proposal Agent's Name

25/7/2017 17/385/COU 52 Easton Street Mrs Janette Greaves for Portland Town Council Change of use of ground floor from A2 (Financial Services) to B1(a) Local Government Office

PTC Recommendation......

31/7/2017 17/535/FUL Hut 30, West Weares Mrs Emily Holmstoel

Erection of beach hut (retrospective)

PTC Recommendation......

31/7/2017 17/538/FUL Land north of 36A-36B Easton Street Mr Long

Erect dwelling Steven Jones Plan Design

PTC Recommendation......

31/7/2017 17/578/FUL 1 Wheatlands Mrs Blundell

Erect single-storey side extension Steven Jones Plan Design

PTC Recommendation......

PTC Recommendation......

PTC Recommendation......

PTC Recommendation......

PTC Recommendation......

PTC Recommendation......

PTC Recommendation......

PTC Recommendation......

Agenda Item 10

FORMER BRACKENBURY INFANTS SCHOOL

Dorset County Council decided on 7th June to release this site for sale and I have been told that they are anxious to proceed with this as soon as possible. The Portland Primary School group are intending to ask for this site in their application for a primary school in Underhill and there is also a lot of community interest in the site for other uses. It could be that if we got the school, the site could be hired out for activities after 6.00pm Monday to Friday and weekends in term-time and at any time in the school holidays.

We need to nominate the site as a Community Asset as soon as possible as otherwise it could be sold before any community group could make a bid. Nominating the asset would not commit the Town Council in any way to making or being involved in a bid to purchase the site. The primary school group is nearly ready to register itself as a corporate body but this will take time which we don't have. This is why I am asking that the Council submit the nomination.

Lucy Grieve (Cllr)