Agenda item

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendix in the agenda supplement and to make the following recommendation to the Council:

That the definitive Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy be approved for use in the determination of relevant planning applications.

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the definitive Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy be approved for use in the determination of relevant planning applications with the amendment agreed by the Cabinet.

[Note The aforesaid amendment relates to para 4.2 in the agenda report (page 25) and substitutes the words ‘an initial three-year review’ in place of ‘a five year review’]

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its appendix in the agenda supplement.

This item was introduced by Mrs Taylor.

Mr Day was in attendance for this matter.

Mrs Taylor pointed out that Chichester Harbour was one of the three designated Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in the Solent. The Solent had an internationally recognised bird wildlife significance eg as the overwintering home for waders, wildfowl and ten percent of the global population of Brent Geese. This wildlife was vulnerable to the impact of the 60,000 much-needed new homes which were planned for the Solent area up to 2034. In order to minimise the impact of that extensive development, the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership (SRMP) had been established and the SRMP had produced the appended Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy (SRMS). It was proposed to use initiatives and education to encourage responsible dog walking and other recreational coastal activities and the SRMS would be implemented by a team of five to seven coastal rangers. It sought to provide mitigation for the duration of the impact in perpetuity (80 years after 2034). Its effectiveness would be monitored and regular strategic reviews would be undertaken: ordinarily this would be once every five years but the first one would be after three years, and if that first review indicated any uncertainty over the effectiveness of the SRMS, then a further review less than five years later could be agreed. Implementation and monitoring of the measures would be funded by developer contributions; these would be calculated according to the bedroom numbers of the property and were equivalent to an average of £564 per dwelling. This would apply to all new dwellings within 5.6 km of the SPAs. If the strategy was unsuccessful then it would be necessary to look at other regulatory measures such as the introduction of bylaws to keep dogs on leads or prevent access to parts of the coast or footpaths during the winter season.  However, the SRMP preferred to promote behaviour change through positive engagement wherever possible. The SRMS had generally been well received by developers as it afforded them certainty and obviated the need for them to provide mitigation measures (although they were free to provide their own measures).  In the case of very large developments, the developers might be required to provide other measures besides the financial contribution. CDC had taken the lead in mitigating the effects of development on wildlife in the Graylingwell and Roussillon schemes and one of its own officers had chaired the panel that formed the SMRS.

Mr Dignum drew attention to the list of authorities involved in the SRMS (page 3 of the agenda supplement).

Mr Day did not add to Mrs Taylor’s introduction.

During the discussion Mr Day and Mr Allgrove responded to members’ questions and comments with regard to how existing and prospective residents would be made aware of the SRMS (para 5.1 of the report).

Mr Allgrove drew attention to the need to amend para 4.2 of the report in that the first review of the SMRS would be a three- and not a five-year review and advised that the third line thereof would be amended by substituting ‘an initial three-year review’ in place of ‘a five-year review’. The Cabinet noted and supported this amendment, a mention of which would feature in the recommendation to be made to the Council.

Decision

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the recommendation to the Council set out below. 

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the definitive Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy be approved for use in the determination of relevant planning applications with the amendment agreed by the Cabinet.