Borough of Poole Council 30 October 2007

BOROUGH OF POOLE COUNCIL – 30 OCTOBER 2007

BOROUGH OF POOLE

COUNCIL MEETING

30 OCTOBER 2007

The Meeting commenced at 7.02pm and concluded at 9.17pm

Present:

CouncillorAllen (Mayor)

CouncillorsMrs Butt (Deputy Mayor)

CouncillorMrs Lavender (Sheriff)

CouncillorsAdams, Ms Atkinson, Brooke, Brown, Bulteel, Burden, Chandler, Clements, Collier, Curtis, Mrs Dion, Eades, Mrs Evans, Gregory, Mrs Haines, Mrs Hillman, Leverett, Mrs Long, Maiden, Martin, Mason, Matthews, Meachin, Montrose, Mrs Moore, Parker, Rampton, Mrs Stribley, Trent, Mrs Walton, White, Wilkins, Miss Wilson, Wilson and Woodcock.

Members of the public present at the Meeting: approximately 5

Members of the Standards Committee present at the Meeting: 3

C102.07APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Deas, Gillard and Sorton.

C103.07MINUTES

A Member raised a query with regards to Minute No. C95.07

NOTICE OF MOTION

No confidence in Portfolio Holder

Fourth paragraph, page 11, new paragraph “…… Querying whether the MP for Mid-Dorset and North Poole was on the Winchelsea Board of Governors for some time?”

A Member claimed that this was an unwarranted attack on one of the local MP’s, the Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Children. He stated that he thought Councillor Woodcock had said “at this time”. Councillor Woodcock was content with the accuracy of the Minute “for some time”.

Councillor Brooke declared a personal interest as his wife was the MP for Poole and North Dorset. He accepted what Councillor Woodcock’s recollection of what was said .

A Member commented that he could not vote for the Minutes as although absent at the last Meeting, on reading these Minutes of the Meeting, he felt that the Minutes contained poor advice and misleading statements. He felt that voting in favour of their accuracy could bring the Council into disrepute.

Members were reminded that they were being asked to vote on the accuracy of the Minutes.

The requisite number of Members requested a recorded vote on whether or not the Minutes were accurate.

“That the Minutes of the last meeting of the Council held on the 18th September 2007, having been previously circulated, be taken as read and confirmed and signed by the Mayor as a correct record.”

Voting on the Motion was as follows:-

For:Councillors Adams, Ms Atkinson, Bulteel, Burden, Mrs Butt, Chandler, Collier, Mrs Dion, Mrs Evans, Gregory, Mrs Haines, Mrs Hillman, Mrs Lavender, Leverett, Montrose, Parker, Rampton, Mrs Stribley, Mrs Walton, White, Wilkins and Woodcock

Against: Councillors Brown, Clements, Curtis, Maiden, Martin, Matthews, Meachin, Mrs Moore, Trent, Miss Wilson and Wilson

Abstained: Councillors Brooke, Mrs Long, Eades, Mason and Trent

The Mayor took no part in the vote.

RESOLVED that the Motion be CARRIED and the Minutes of the last Meeting of the Council, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, confirmed and signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

C104.07DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Clements declared a personal interest as a Governor of Manorside School as one of the Schools affected by Question 1 to Councillor Woodcock at Council this evening.

In Question No. 1 to Councillor Woodcock at Council this evening relating to School Admission Policies, Councillor Miss Wilson also declared an interest in the same item as a School Governor.

Councillor Brooke declared a personal interest in Motion (d) relating to the REMPLOY Factory which mentioned his request that Council to support Annette Brooke MP’s request to investigate the possibility of a procurement.

Councillors Mrs Moore and Bulteel, former Trustees of Shopmobility declared a personal interest in the Motion before Council relating to Poole Shopmobility at Item 10(d).

Councillor Adams declared a personal interest as the Borough Council’s Representative on Poole Shopmobility in Motion 10(d) relating to Poole Shopmobility.

Councillor Eades declared a personal interest as a licensee in Poole in Motion 10(a) – Proposed use of Polycarbonate drinking vessels.

Councillors Mrs Hillman and Rampton declared personal interests as Borough of Poole representatives on the Citizens Advice Bureau – Agenda Item 9.

C105.07MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS

The Mayor referred Members to his Communications which detailed engagements he had undertaken since the last meeting of the Council. He referred in particular to two.

(a)Poole in Bloom – Awards 1st October 2007

The Mayor informed the Council that he had presented the Awards at the Annual Poole in Bloom Awards, accompanied by the Mayoress, Sheriff and her Escort.

(b)Awards Ceremony for Looked After Children – 24th October 2007

The Mayor informed the Council that he had had great pleasure in presenting Awards for achievement to ‘Looked After Children’ at a celebration lunch at the Harbour Heights Hotel.

C106.07PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

(a)From Members of the Public

There were no petitions received.

(b)From Members

Councillor Trent presented a petition from residents of Alderney West requesting a bus linking Alderney West with Upper Parkstone in the following terms:-

“Since the removal of the No. 66 bus in July 2006, we on Alderney West, have lost our link to Upper Parkstone and Bournemouth. We lack lots of facilities on this Estate, including the ability to charge meter cards, and we miss being able to get to the food shops and our local Bank branches in Ashley Road. Since the Rossmore Flier involves a long walk via a subway and unlit wooded area to Corbiere Avenue. Also we aren’t all bus pass holders and changing buses can be very expensive. We therefore respectively ask that a bus link be restored to at least Upper Parkstone from this isolated Estate.”

RESOLVED that the Petition be referred to Transportation Advisory Group and Portfolio Holder or Cabinet.

C107.07QUESTION FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The following Question had been received from Mrs Linda Moore:

“There has been a great deal of problems over the years of first floor flat tenants having access to maintain television aerials and cleaning of windows, which requires access to the garden of the ground floor flat.

Some people have high fences, several dogs and garden furniture in their garden, which makes it difficult for a window cleaner or contractor to safely put a ladder up to clean the windows in a first floor flat, and creates animosity between neighbours.

Can the Council consider instilling a clause in tenancy conditions to enable access to the exterior of council owned first floor flats?”

Councillor Ms Atkinson responded in the following terms:-

Response:

“The Council is always grateful to receive suggestions from tenants and residents to improve services and therefore we would like to thank Mrs Moore for bringing this to our attention.

We have consulted with Poole Housing partnership (PHP) who manage the Council’s housing stock about this proposal. Although they have told us that the access to first floor flats is not a wide spread problem it is something that can be addressed by revising the tenancy conditions . Therefore , we have asked PHP to include this proposal in a review of the Council’s conditions of tenancy and to consult with tenants on any proposed changes. PHP have told us they hope to undertake this work by March 2008.”

Note: Councillors Mrs Hillman, Bulteel, Miss Wilson, Wilson and Wilkins all declared personal interest as Council appointees to the Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (PHP) Board of Directors.

C108.07DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS TRANSPORT INVESTMENT – INTERIM PLANNING FRAMEWORK: REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR LOCAL ECONOMY

Councillor Parker introduced his Report explaining that unfortunately due to the timescale this issue was considered by Cabinet and then referred to Local Economy Overview Group on the 4th October to allow the Local Economy Overview Group to debate the issue. It was noted that the decision would be made following debate by Council this evening.

In 2005 the Joint Strategic Planning and Transportation Committee had recommended, as a priority action, that a South East Dorset Scheme for development contributions from infill residential developments towards transport should be introduced as soon as possible. This was confirmed by the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy. Poole had had an ad hoc scheme for transportation contributions since 2004 so it was prudent to improve on this and make it more resistant to legal challenge. Accordingly a formal six week consultation on the revised Scheme had been held in July/August of this year. The summary of the consultation responses and changes to the Scheme taking account of representations made were considered by Cabinet and supported by the Chairman of the Local Economy Overview Group and the Portfolio Holder for Transportation. Two features of the new transport contribution scheme were:-

the index-linked contribution of £1000 per new residential unit
contributions supporting Local Transport Plan (LTP) capital schemes in Poole only
unused contributions will be returned after 10 years
the Scheme would operate until replaced by the anticipated South East Dorset Scheme expected to be during 2008.

Councillor Parker made the following amendments asking the Meeting to delete item (ii) in the Decisions Required and at 7.1 in Appendix 2 to the Report this should also refer to Poole and the £1,000 per unit was plus an administrative fee.

With regard to the 25% discount for sheltered housing Cabinet had found this unacceptable. Councillor Parker explained that T13 of the Poole Local Plan supported LPT2 with £1,000 per dwelling. He requested the Council to delete (ii) and insert a new

“(ii)that the indicative list of Schemes at Appendix 2 be reviewed to reflect and mitigate local needs (T13)”.

This amendment was duly seconded.

A Member accused Councillor Parker of making Policy “on the hoof”. He explained that these proposed changes had been discussed at the Group Leaders Meeting half an hour before this Council Meeting and he did not feel this was good enough. He felt this should not have been considered first by Cabinet but that the Local Economy Overview Group should have first been consulted. He felt the Report should be referred back for proper consultation.

Councillor Parker advised that the Chairman of the Local Economy Overview Group was satisfied of the reasons why this report went to Cabinet first.

A Member commented that this was a failure of the way the Council operated the Overview and Scrutiny system. Scrutiny should be done in advance of policy formulation by the Overview Group. He stated that the consultation only reflected the Developers concerns not those of residents and stakeholders.

An amendment was moved and seconded in the following terms:-

(ii)“Instruct the Portfolio Holder to bring forward a further report following consultation with residents and other stakeholders, to demonstrate that the Scheme will deal with mitigation other than that detailed in Attachment 1 of the original Report to Cabinet.”

and the current (ii) to be renumbered (iii).

A Member commented that the argument about process was time consuming and detracted from the actual debate. The decision was made by the whole Council and it was here for everyone to address.

Councillor Parker, the Portfolio Holder was unable to accept the amendment as it was proposed. He was not happy to invite consultation with residents when it was the Developers that were making the contributions.

The Mayor asked Councillor Parker to clarify that if Planning Committee had put conditions on the development was this Policy instead or additional to the existing. Councillor Parker explained that this Scheme would replace the existing contributions and the current Scheme used in Poole.

A number of Members spoke in favour of the Amendment suggesting that consultation should have taken place with residents affected and that the right thing would have been to refer this to Area Committees to allow representations to be made. He felt it needed further review and consideration and supported the Amendment. A Member was disappointed that he had not been able to speak to senior officers today as he felt that the papers that were before the Council were misleading and needed to seek guidance.

A Member commented with regard to development in Hamworthy, explaining that if Members did not act on this Policy, development would occur in Hamworthy and not a penny would be spent on transport improvements. All the money would go to the four Schemes listed in Attachment 2 to the Report.

A Member commented that a flat contribution to affordable housing made sense but a flat contribution to the transport did not make sense and there was no audit trial. He felt that any contribution to the transport infrastructure had to mitigate against the effects of development.

A number of Members spoke against the Amendment.

A Member commented that at paragraph 3.3, Item 8 formalising this Scheme meant that Developers had to provide £1,000 for each dwellinghouse which had to be within the vicinity and acceptable in planning terms. There already was an Interim Policy of £1,000 per dwelling which had been in existence since 2004.

A Member commented that local issues were not addressed and that she felt she disenfranchised, stating that this issue had never been to Transportation Advisory Group.

In summing up in support of this Amendment, a Member referred to Councillor Parker’s assertion that he could not accept any amendment as Councillor Parker had stated the money was being provided by Developers, as 4 Schemes had commenced and residents and business were suffering he felt this issue should go to Area Committee, Town Centre Management Board and the Tourism Board for consultation. Residents caused inconvenience by development should be mitigated and paid for by Developers.

He urged Councillor Parker to accept his Amendment.

On being put to the vote the Amendment, in the following terms, was LOST.

A Member queried whether the £1,000 contribution to Transport Infrastructure was index linked and this was confirmed.

Councillor Parker responded explaining that this was not merely a Borough of Poole issue but a South East Dorset issue and this was an Interim Policy until fully adopted next year by all the relevant South East authorities. If each authority had a different rate this would distort the Developer contribution.

The requisite number of Members requested a recorded vote on the Amendment proposed by Councillor Parker.

Voting on the following Amendment was as follows:-

DELETE

“(ii)with regard to those contributions from Sheltered housing sites, confirm that any subsequent discount scheme be supported by clear evidence and be endorsed by the Portfolio Holder”.

INSERT

“(ii)that the indicative list of Schemes at Appendix 2 be reviewed to reflect and mitigate local needs (T13)”.

For:Councillors Mrs Butt (Deputy Mayor), Adams, Ms Atkinson, Bulteel, Burden, Chandler, Collier, Mrs Dion, Mrs Evans, Gregory, Mrs Haines, Mrs Hillman, Mrs Lavender, Leverett, Montrose, Parker, Mrs Stribley, Mrs Walton, White and Woodcock

Against: Councillors Brooke, Brown, Clements, Curtis, Eades, Mrs Long, Maiden, Matthews, Meachin, Mrs Moore and Miss Wilson

Abstained: Councillors Allen (The Mayor), Mason, Martin, Trent, Rampton and Wilson

The Amendment was CARRIED.

RESOLVED

(i)that Council endorse the Development Contribution towards Transport Investment Interim Planning Framework as a basis for determining residential planning applications; and

(ii)that the indicative list of Schemes at Appendix 2 be reviewed to reflect and mitigate local needs (T13)”.

NOTE: Pre-consultation papers were attached to the Report to Council, updated, post consultation papers will be circulated to all Members.

C109.07PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION ON DISPOSAL OF LAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING: REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SERVICE PROVISION SCRUTINY AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

Councillor Mrs Haines, the Chairman of the Service Provision Scrutiny and Audit Committee introduced her Report explaining that this amendment related to provision to sell land below market value expressly to build affordable housing.

One of the ways in which the Council could meet this objective was to dispose of Council owned land to selected Registered Social Landlords (RSL) for the specific purpose of building affordable housing be it for social rent or shared ownership schemes. To make such a transaction attractive, the land would be disposed of at below open market value. The different between the sale price and open market value represented the Council’s contribution towards the cost of meeting the housing needs of the local people.

Contribution towards resources could be in the form of land value or cash with land value being the better option as the Council could specify what use the land must be put to whereas with cash, there was still the problem of identifying the land and the cost of purchasing the land.