BOROUGH OF POOLE – CANFORD CLIFFS AND PENN HILL AREA COMMITTEE – 27 JULY 2011

AGENDA ITEM 3

BOROUGH OF POOLE

NOTICE OF MEETING

CANFORD CLIFFS AND PENN HILL AREA COMMITTEE

27JULY 2011

The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm and concluded at 8:50pm

Present:

Councillor Mrs Haines (Chairman)

Councillors Ms Atkinson, Mrs Dion, Parker, Pawlowski and Sorton

Also present:

Kate Gibbings, Legal and Democratic Services

Steve Dean, Transportation Services

Judy Erven, Environmental and Consumer Protection Services

Martin Whitchurch, Leisure Services

Members of the public present:Approximately 55

CCPH01.11 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillor Mrs Butt, who, as the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Culture had beeninvited to field any questions in relation to Agenda Item CCPH07.11- Localism Bill.

CCPH02.11DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None received.

CCPH03.11MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 March 2011, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

CCPH04.11MATTERS ARSISNG FROM THE MINUTES

A resident requested an update regarding a review of the Area Committees, as the Clerk had informed the Committee at the last Meeting that she would investigate the matter and feedback at this Meeting.

In response the Leader, Councillor Ms Atkinson advised the Committee that a Community Engagement Review was to be undertaken thatwould include all aspects of community engagement, including the Area Committees.

The Court Case regarding the attempt to destroy trees on the Sandbanks Peninsular had again been adjourned and was now to be considered on 17-19 October 2011.

CCPH05.11TERMS OF REFERENCE

RESOLVED that the Terms of Reference be noted.

CCPH06.11TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER OBJECTIONS

The Committee considered the joint Report of the Head of Transportation Services and Environmental Consumer Protection Services in respect of the Objections received on the Traffic Regulation Orders for (i) Langdon Road and (ii) Frankland Crescent. It was noted that no objections had been received in respect of the advertised parking restrictions for (iii) Avalon, and as such an extension of the existing yellow lines was to be implemented.

The Transportation Service Officer explained that a study had been conducted in conjunction with the Emergency Services and Environmental and Consumer Protection Services (ECPS),to identify locations where their vehicles had experienced regular access difficulties. The Study had identified that there were difficulties within Langdon Road and Frankland Crescent as a result of kerbside parking.

i)In respect of Langdon Road the main issues raised by the Objectors had been outlined within paragraph4.2 of the Report. It was noted that the Report only provided a summary of the Objections, however all objections received had been circulated to Committee Members before the Meeting. As a result of the Objections received further investigation with ECPS had indicated that it could operate with a shorter clearance. It was therefore proposed that yellow lines outside Langdon Court be implemented instead of the advertised restrictions on the opposite side of Langdon Court from the existing no waiting restrictions all along the bend of Langdon Road (as had been indicated on the drawing within the Agenda).

The Environmental and Consumer Protection Services Officer advised that parking was a premium everywhere but there was a need to address parked cars on both sides of the road outside Langdon Court. Due to access to the block of flats’ bins and parked vehicles within this Section of the Road the Waste Collection Vehicle often blocked the entire road, which had resulted in complaints from road users as well as the Waste Collection Team.

Members advised the Committee that this was an example where local opinions had an impact on decisions made by the Council and hoped this new proposal would satisfy all concerned. It was however suggested that a ban on loading or unloadingat anytime be implemented to ensure that cars displaying blue badges were also prohibited from parking in this area.

Residents at the Meeting thanked the Members, ECPS and Transportation Services for reviewing its proposals. The majority were in agreement with the new proposals and highlighted that one of the concerns they had if the original restrictions had been imposed was that the Road may have been used as a rat run.

A resident felt that not all the points that she had raised with the Transportation Services had been addressed. In response it was agreed that Transportation Services would provide a direct response to her particular questions outside of the Meeting.

The Committee was advised that if Members were in agreement not to confirm the original Orders for Langdon Road it would need to re-advertise the restrictions to impose yellow lines on the other side of the Road, but this could be combined with other orders in a subsequent batch of Orders.

RESOLVED that the Orders for Langdon Road be not confirmed but that a shorter length is re-advertised on the outside of the bend outside Langdon Court and No. 70, as indicated on the Agenda’s Plan, to include a ban on loading or unloading at anytime, to ensure that disabled cars were also prohibited from parking in this area.

ii)In respect of Frankland Road the main issues raised by the Objectors had been outlined within paragraph 5.2 of the Report. It was again highlighted that the Report only provided a summary of the Objections, however all objections received had been taken into account.Some of the Objectors had suggested that since advertising the proposed waiting restrictions there had been considerable parking improvements and as such it was suggested that the Orders not be confirmed by Members.

In response to questions raised the Environmental and Consumer Protection Officer advised the Committee that it had previously written to residents about particular issues without success.

Some Members felt the Residents in this Road had clearly wanted to co-operate and had voluntarily resolved the parking issues highlighted by ECPS. It was also indicated that if the Waste Collection Service was unable to access roads to collect residents’ waste, the residents would soon respond and park cars more considerately. The Council needed to give its Residents more responsibility and that Transportation Services needed to communicate directly with Ward Councillors before itconsidered imposing parking restrictions. It was suggested that should the Waste Collection Service experience difficulties with access that the Team try knocking on the Resident’s doors to see if the parked cars could be moved.

A resident advised the Committee that the he was not aware of any Residents being notified that there were problems with the Waste Collection Vehicles accessing the Road and that many of the Residents were willing to self regulate the car parking in this Road.

RESOLVED that the Advertised Parking Restrictions in respect of Frankland Crescent not be implemented.

iii)In respect of Avalon the Committee discussed whether Transportation Services should pursue the implementation of yellow lines even though there had been no objectors.

Some Members and residents at the Meeting highlighted the need to impose parking restrictions. They were in agreement that yellow lines should not be imposed without thorough consultation but in this case there had been a full debate at the last Area Committee Meeting and the proposed parking restrictions had been fully supported by the Residents.

RESOLVED that in respect of Avalonan extension of the existing yellow lines be implemented.

CCPH07.11LOCALISM BILL

The Chairman advised that as the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Culture was unable to attend the Meeting this Agenda Item would be deferred.

CCPH08.11PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (RECREATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS) UPDATE

The Committee acknowledged the Planning Obligations (Recreational Contributions) Update Report and considered the request to fund improvements on the Open Space between Haven Road and Bessborough Road.

A resident advised the Committee that information on the total amount of developer contributions for the Planning Obligations Fund and details of any returned funds that he had previously requested was yet to be received. He also asked that this information and the dates from when funds were received be provided within all future Planning Obligations’ Reports.

In response the Officer from Leisure Services advised the Committee that he would ask the Greenspace Development Team Leader to investigate if it was possible to provide the requested information and re-format the standard report information.

RESOLVED that
  1. the position for the Planning Obligations Funds within Canford Cliffs and Pen Hill Wards, as at 31 May 2011, be noted.
  2. Up to £4,000 from the Canford Cliffs Casual Play and Amenity Open Space Developer Contribution Fund be allocated, to improve the Open Space between Haven Road and Bessborough Road to include the following improvements:
  • Establishing a woodchip path
  • Reinstating the fencing along Haven Road
  • Planting to screen the substation
  • Woodland flower and bulb planting
  • Signage
  • Installing a bin
  • Installing a bench

CCPH09.11PINECLIFF SUNKEN GARDENS AND CANFORD CLIFFS POCKET PARK

The Committee was advised that people on the ’Community Pay-Back’ Scheme(in conjunction by the Canford Cliffs Land Society) had cleared the area in Pocket Park and that the Land Society was to work closely with the Borough of Poole’s Leisure Services. It was noted that theinitial clear up costswas financed by the Land Society

Work on the Pinecliff Sunken Gardens had also commenced and the area had been cleared with the support of the VictoriaSchool and a group of volunteers. The Group of volunteers, organised bythe Branksome Park and Canford CliffsResidents Association, had met every Wednesday between 10.30am-12.30pm. The need for additional volunteers was still required.

Thanks wereexpressed by the Meeting to all concerned including Canford Cliffs Land Society, Branksome Park and Canford Cliffs Residents Association andVictoria School.

CCPH10.11URGENT BUSINESS

None

CCPH11.11OPEN FORUM

The Legal and Democratic Support Officer advised the Committee that a resident had submitted questions for this Committee, which had missed the deadline to be included within the Agenda, however responses had been received. The Legal and Democratic Support Officer then read out both the Questions and the received Responses, which were as follows:

Question

  1. Why did we have to source the wooden galleon for the Canford Cliffs playground from Germany? Surely a British local company could have supplied?

Response

When deciding on the range of equipment to install at Treasure Island Play Area in the Canford Cliffs Playground, a variety of ships where assessed for their play value as well as aesthetics, robustness andcost to supply and install, whilst ensuring that they also complied with the BS EN Safety Standards.The ship that was chosen was procured through an English company, based in Hampshire, who provided a specific range of timber equipment manufactured for them in Germany. The Continental Europeans produce the best, most adventurous play equipment within the BS EN Safety Standards frameworks and there was nothing from a UK source that could match it within the procurement framework that was used for this Project. Most British play suppliers with adventurous play in their catalogues import from Continental Europe.

Question

  1. When will the 'Car park FULL' sign be erected at Sandbanks car park?

Response

There was currently no funding available to install a ‘Sandbanks car park full’ sign at County Gates.

Question

  1. The special Area Meeting voted to approve the footpath spur(at the rearof theSandbanks Marina Yacht Boatyard) going through to the Bay. When will this be implemented?

Response

The Footpath 128 (spur of Fp82) had an Order made but not confirmed, due to objections being received. The main objector was the Sandbanks Marina, who had since withdrawn its Objection, however other objections were received. The next stage is for the Council to write to the Objectors and ask if they wished to reconsider and withdraw their Objections. If the Objectors withdraw their Objectionsthe Order can be confirmed, if not the Council will have to refer the matter to the Planning Inspectorate.

A resident highlighted that part of Bella Rosa’s Advertisement Sign was still in situe despite the Enforcement Notice issued to Bella Rosa regarding the removal of its Advertisement Sign in May 2010. The Resident also highlighted that at least 6 other companies had placed their ‘A’ Boards and Advertisement Signs on the pavements along Haven Road between Cliffs Drive and Maxwell Road, which encroached outside the permitted boundaries and was against the Highways Act. This had made it almost impossible for wheelchair users and pushchairs to access the Pavements safely and had asked the Committee to take action.

In response the Chairman advised the Committee that she would arrange to meet with the Highway Inspectorate to review the highlighted obstructions.

Councillor Mrs Dion advised the Committee that a resident had requested that yellow lines and slow down signs need to be considered at the junctions of Pottery Road, Elgin Road and Crawshaw Road due to the amount of parked cars of those wishing to pay respects at the Cemetery.

The Committee discussed the Resident’s request but was in agreement that; having received no other complaints from residents within this area or a request from Transportation Services, that it was not appropriate to implement parking restrictions.

A resident raised concerns that the Play Equipment installed with the Canford Cliffs Playground was larger than residents had expected and took up more space than the initial plans had indicated. The Committee was advised that football used to be played informally on a small triangular piece of land near the Play Area but due to the location of the Swing was not sure if football could continue to be played within the reduced space available. He also enquiredas to when the Senior Citizen exercise equipment would be installed.

In response the Officer from Leisure Services advised the Committee that there had been a slight increase to the originally Plan. The Swing and Galleon had slightly extended the original Play Area’s Perimeter. A map was displayed to the Committee outlining the original perimeter and where the Swing and Galleon were now located. The Committee was advised that the due to tree roots it was not possible to secure the Swing in the area originally planned and therefore was relocated. The perimeter increase was very slight and had not had a significant impact on the Site.

The adult outdoor fitness equipment was initially discussed in 2008 and more recently again in January 2011 and was expected to be installed within the next couple of weeks.The Play Area was expected to be open from Friday 5 August 2011, currently waiting for the fencing to be delivered and on Thursday 11 August 2011 at 2pm its official opening by the Mayor of Poole was expected, however, this date and time had yet to be confirmed.

Both the Residents and Members were in support of the Play Area and felt that once completed it would be a fantastic playground for children and there wasstill sufficient space for people to play cricket and football.

RESOLVED that thanks be given to the Leisure Service Officers for their hard work on the Canford Cliffs Playground.

A resident highlighted to the Committee his concerns in respect of traffic on Lindsay Road. The main points of his complaint were noted as follows:

  • An increase in the amount of traffic on the Road, which had led to the Junction being virtually blocked during busy periods of the day. In addition when the Road was not congested traffic would speed, he estimated at speeds of around 35-50mph, even though there was an electronic warning sign advising drivers to ‘slow down’.
  • The Primary Traffic Corridor - established in 2006 from Lindsay Road, Leicester Road and Penn Hill to Parkstone Station had been extended to include18.5 tonnesLorries.
  • On 30 November 2006 the Transport Advisory Group recommended that consideration in respect of the Lindsay Road and St Aldhelms Road Junction Improvements be deferred until the effects of the Lights at Lindsay Road and Leicester Road were known. Now it is time to review the effects of the lights at Lindsay Road/ Leicester Road, because whilst the Traffic Lights were a success the trafficproblem had moved to the Junction of Lindsay Road and St. Aldhelms Road. He urged that the Committee establish traffic lights, possibly ‘Smart Traffic Lights’ to slow the traffic down to 30mph or implement a mini-roundabout.
  • He felt that a refuge both west and east of Lindsay Road at the Junction would be a minimum to regulate the traffic for pedestrians to cross to Branksome Chine especially with the new development in St Aldhelms Road. He also made note of the Victoria School had a minibusdisabled pupils and its staff and the Park Manor Residential Home.

He advised the Committee that other residents were also concerned about the issues he had raised.