Issue - meetings

The Big Plan of BCP Council includes developing 15,000 new homes within our city region which is adjacent to sensitive and vulnerable habitats, including the Dorset Heathlands which are designated areas for special protection. Any increase in footfall in those sensitive heathland areas threatens their fragile ecosystem. This is why, in order to protect those habitats, Natural England stipulates the development of SANGs whenever additional housing is being proposed which could result in more people visiting the heathlands. This is a heathland mitigation measure. A SANG is a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs). It is a space provided for leisure to attract people away from the sensitive heathland.

The purpose of this SANG is to serve as heathland mitigation to enable the commencement and occupation of large scale residential schemes of 50 units and over in Bournemouth, including the Winter Gardens site as well as others.

This development at Throop will follow the Natural England guidelines for SANGs, providing attractive areas for walking, linking to the cycle network, and including the provision of a small car park which will be screened by vegetation from Throop Village. Additional planting will add interest and support an increase in biodiversity.

These plans are consistent with the longer term plans for Hicks Farm and the Stour Valley Park.

We will work constructively with the Throop and Holdenhurst parish Council to deliver the SANG.

RESOLVED that Cabinet approve the utilisation of: -

      (i)       £518,000 of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) heathland mitigation resources for the implementation of the project, and

    (ii)        an additional £100,000 of CIL resources for those elements of the implementation which can’t be funded using heathland mitigation funds; and

   (iii)       Circa £100K of CIL Heathlands Mitigation resources per year (rising with inflation) for 80 years.

Voting: Unanimous

Portfolio Holder: Environment and Place

Reason

This development will reduce the environmental impact of leisure on internationally sensitive heathland ecosystems; provide additional attractive leisure space for BCP residents and visitors; increase biodiversity and bio-resilience in the Throop area; and enable the commencement and occupation of large-scale residential schemes of 50 units and over in Bournemouth, as part of the Big Plan.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Place presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'B' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Cabinet was informed that the Big Plan of BCP Council includes developing 15,000 new homes within our city region which was adjacent to sensitive and vulnerable habitats, including the Dorset Heathlands which were designated areas for special protection, and that any increase in footfall in those sensitive heathland areas threatens their fragile ecosystem.

In relation to this Cabinet was advised that this is why, in order to protect those habitats, Natural England stipulates the development of SANGs whenever additional housing was being proposed which could result in more people visiting the heathlands, and that this was a heathland mitigation measure.

Cabinet was further advised that a SANG was a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs), and that it was a space provided for leisure to attract people away from the sensitive heathland.

Cabinet was informed that the purpose of this SANG was to serve as heathland mitigation to enable the commencement and occupation of large scale residential schemes of 50 units and over in Bournemouth, including the Winter Gardens site as well as others, and that this development at Throop would follow the Natural England guidelines for SANGs, providing attractive areas for walking, linking to the cycle network, and including the provision of a small car park which will be screened by vegetation from Throop Village. Additional planting would add interest and support an increase in biodiversity.

Cabinet was further informed that these plans were consistent with the longer-term plans for Hicks Farm and the Stour Valley Park, and that the Council would work constructively with the Throop and Holdenhurst Parish Council to deliver the SANG.

The Deputy Leader spoke in support of the report.

The Portfolio Holder advised that following Overview and Scrutiny he was proposing a minor amendment to recommendation iii to include the words ‘heathland mitigation’ after CIL as this was more accurate and would reflet the wording of the first recommendation.

The Deputy Leader spoke in support of the report.

RESOLVED that Cabinet approve the utilisation of: -

      (i)       £518,000 of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) heathland mitigation resources for the implementation of the project, and

    (ii)        an additional £100,000 of CIL resources for those elements of the implementation which can’t be funded using heathland mitigation funds; and

   (iii)       Circa £100K of CIL Heathlands Mitigation resources per year (rising with inflation) for 80 years.

Voting: Unanimous

Portfolio Holder: Environment and Place

To consider the Development of the Throop Nature Park (Hicks SANG) report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 9 March 2022:

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Mark Anderson, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Place.

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Place presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member of the Board and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'B' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Portfolio Holder and the Strategic Lead, Greenspace and Conservation, addressed a number of points raised by the Board including:

·       Why was it appropriate to call the proposal a nature park when the planning consent was for a SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace)? The term ‘nature park’ implied something different and may increase concerns for local residents. The Board was advised that ‘SANG’ was a technical term which did not mean very much to the public. There were similar examples where the term ‘nature park’ had been applied and its use here reflected the Council’s aspirations for the site.

·       Board members asked why the £100k of CIL resources referenced in recommendation (iii) was needed, particularly when SANGs were meant to require less maintenance. The £100k sum would rise with inflation and was needed per annum for 80 years and there were concerns that this may reduce the amount of resource available for other sites? It was explained that the £100k was needed for the maintenance of the site, including car park improvements, electric vehicle charging and ecology surveys. The Board was assured that parks maintenance was not resourced from CIL. The heathland mitigation contribution came as result of new housing development and was ringfenced for the purpose of delivering the SANG.

·       Board members asked whether the new ranger to manage this site was a dedicated, full-time post as implied in the report. It was explained that the new ranger would also be supporting other SANGs and heathland projects in BCP. Members felt this should be made clear in the report, to reassure local residents and avoid any misunderstanding about the nature of the project. It was noted that the highest risk assessed was the negative views of stakeholders/local residents.

·       Why was £618k needed for implementation when the land was already owned by the Council? An approximate breakdown of costs was provided, including contingency figures and project fees. A Board member challenged these figures and questioned why these costs were not included in the report for transparency.

·       A Board member asked whether the £100k of CIL resources in recommendation (iii) was exclusively from the heathland mitigation element. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that it was and gave an undertaking to amend the Cabinet recommendation to reflect this.

·       It was noted that the Equalities Impact Assessment accepted that the lack of toilets and lighting would impact on the ability to use the open space.

·       It was confirmed that the site had a dual use as pasture and water meadow depending on seasonal conditions.

·       It was confirmed that although the site would remain open all hours, the opening times for the car park were conditioned in the planning consent to avoid issues such as anti-social behaviour.

·       A Board member felt the rebranding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170