Issue - meetings

The papers relevant to this item which will be considered by the Cabinet on Tuesday 6 March 2018 immediately prior to this meeting are the Cabinet agenda report and its appendix in the agenda supplement (respectively pages 24 to 26 and 1 to 28).

It is anticipated that the following recommendation will be made by the Cabinet to the Council:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

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

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting earlier in the day on Tuesday 6 March 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 24 to 26 of the Cabinet agenda) and its appendix (pages 1 to 28 of the agenda supplement).  

The recommendation made by the Cabinet had been amended from the one which was set out in the Council agenda. An update sheet produced after the Cabinet’s meeting earlier in the day and which circulated prior to the start of this meeting reported the following revised text for the recommendation:

‘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.’

The aforesaid amendment related to para 4.2 in the agenda report (page 25) and substituted the words ‘an initial three-year review’ in place of ‘a five year review’.

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s amended recommendation and this was seconded by Mrs Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services).

Mrs Taylor presented the Cabinet’s amended recommendation. She 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 10% 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 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 490