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.
Minutes:
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 by developers as it afforded them certainty and obviated the need for them to provide specific 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 SRMS.
During the discussion members in general commended the work done in producing the SRMS, although Mr Lloyd-Williams expressed his dissent on the basis that the SRMS would simply increase house prices (the resource costs listed on page 25 of the agenda supplement) and was in his opinion an extravagant waste of money; he urged that the focus should be instead on enforcing by-laws.
Mrs Taylor, Mr Frost, Mrs Shepherd and Mr Day (Environmental Co-ordinator) responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail with respect to (a) the impact on house prices of mitigation measures; (b) the review period, the effectiveness of monitoring between reviews and the need for annual appraisals of the effectiveness of the measures; (c) the damage to the eco-system which had already occurred from development occurring too close to Chichester Harbour; (d) the extent to which putting dogs on leads would work; (e) the effectiveness of the measures such as the number of rangers to cover such a wide area; (f) the absence of scientific evidence in support of the mitigation measures; (g) the reason for and the calculation of the sliding scale of the cost to developers depending on the number of bedrooms of each property (para 5.3 of the agenda report); (h) the need to enforce the soft measures in the SRMS with the enforcement of by-laws; (i) the need for the SRMS review to look at including Pagham Harbour, notwithstanding that it had its own strategy, and also Medmerry; and (j) the need for the review to examine the robustness of the in-perpetuity funding and governance arrangements
Decision
On a show of hands the members present voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation with one vote against (Mr Lloyd-Williams) and one abstention (Mrs Tull).
RESOLVED
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.