Issue - meetings

To adopt the Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document.

The ? presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix '?' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Public Report 

RECOMMENDED/RESOLVED that

(a)  Cabinet recommends that Council adopt the Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD);

The making of any minor changes to the SPD and publication arrangements are delegated to the Director of Growth and Infrastructure in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning.

Voting: Unanimous/Nem. Con. X:Y (Z abstentions)

To adopt the Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document.

The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'I' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Cabinet was requested to adopt the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Documents.

In presenting the report the Portfolio Holder advised of an amendment to be inserted at para 3.6.1 of the document so that the paragraph now reads:

3.6.1 In order to future proof development ahead of the expected transition to electric vehicles (EV), the council expects the inclusion of charging points for electric vehicles in all new developments.  Proposals for houses/bungalows with at least one designated parking space within the curtilage of its own plot must ensure the installation of at least one active EV charging point.  Conversions and change of use applications will be agreed with the LPA on a case by case basis.

Further to this Cabinet was advised that following the above addition to paragraph 3.6.1 that there was a consequential change to Table 1 – which required a new row to be inserted into the table and an additional text on the next two rows (highlighted in red), so that the table will now read:

Table 1 EV provision

Councillors Felicity Rice and Andy Hadley addressed the Cabinet welcoming the addition of the EV charging points. In addition Councillor Rice requested that the addition of charging points for bikes be considered.

Councillor Nigel Brook addressed the Cabinet indicating the importance of Members

RECOMMENDED that:-

(a)          Council adopt the Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); and

(b)          The making of any minor changes to the SPD and publication arrangements are delegated to the Director of Growth and Infrastructure in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning.

Voting: Nem. Con. (1 abstention)

To consider issues within the Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning Portfolio area, including the following report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 16 December 2020:

• BCP Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the report and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Philip Broadhead, Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability.

The Cabinet report is attached for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

BCP Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document - The Portfolio Holder for transport and Sustainability introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘I’ to the Cabinet minutes of 16 December in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     Parts of the Twin Sails regeneration area were designated as zone B but were within good walking distance and within the regeneration zone which should itself have good community facilities. A Councillor felt that these parts should be within zone A as was part already across the water. It was also noted that the Port was designated as zone c and it was suggested that this should be an area where we were reducing traffic. The Portfolio Holder advised that it wasn’t expected that this would be completely right from the beginning and there were options for reviewing the zones. However, it was also noted that the difference in requirements between zone b and zone a were minimal and only in reference to 2-bedroom houses and family size, 3-bedroom flats.

·     A decision to move coach parking by the previous Christchurch Council from the Town Centre to a more remote location. A Councillor asked if there was anything more on coach issues on this report. The Portfolio Holder advised that this policy related solely to new development parking provision and did not address any normal car parks or on street parking provision.

·     Many bus companies were now working with very tight margins in the provision of some routes and in light of this the Portfolio Holder was asked about the timescales for when it was anticipated that the bus services would meet the needs of the community. The Board was advised that the Council needed to work with the bus companies and that they had been involved with this policy. The major changes from previous policies were in zone A and B which were areas which were already well served by bus routes. Some routes were just on the margin of viability should in theory be helped by the parking standards policy. The overall timescale for this would need to work itself out.

·     A Board member commented that parking was major contributor to BCP finances and there was a need to support retailers and the hospitality sector particularly at the moment. It was suggested to delay proposals to allow for natural erosion following Brexit and Covid to take its course. The Portfolio Holder responded that he couldn’t see anyway in which the policy would work against businesses in town centres and reiterated that there was no change to public car parking or on street parking under the policy.

·     A Councillor asked about the previous proposals for constructing future properties with car parking which could be converted to other uses as the need for car parking reduces. It was noted that this was now unlikely to be required as there was no onsite parking proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112