BOROUGH OF POOLE
MINUTES
CANFORD CLIFFS AND PENN HILL AREA COMMITTEE
HELD ON 15 JUNE 2005 AT 7PM
IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, POOLE
The meeting commenced at 7pm and finished at 8.30pm.
Present:
Councillor Smith (Chairman)
Councillors Mrs Dion and Parker
Members of the public present:- 25
Officers in attendance
Pam Papani, Legal and Democratic Services
Steve Tite, Transportation Services
1.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ms Atkinson, Mrs Deas and Sorton.
Matti Raudsepp, Leisure Services, had telephoned to advise that his car had broken down on the way to the Civic Centre. He would endeavour to get to the meeting if he could.
2.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
3.MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 20th April 2005 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
4.PLANNING OBLIGATIONS FUND FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES
AGREED that in the absence of Matti Raudsepp, Leisure Services, consideration of the matter be deferred to the next meeting.
5.PROPOSED NEW PLAY AREA ADJACENT TO CRAZY GOLF IN SANDBANKS
AGREED that in the absence of Matti Raudsepp, Leisure Services, consideration of the matter be deferred to the next meeting.
6.TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Traffic Regulation Orders
It was noted that Orders for waiting restrictions had been recently advertised in respect of the following, with a closing date for representations of 9th June 2005.
(a) Penn Hill – Night Time Taxi Rank
The proposal was to convert the existing limited waiting parking spaces in the lay-by to a taxi rank between the hours of 7pm and 7am. The lay-by accommodated approximately 4-5 vehicles. The spaces would be retained for school stay parking during the day.
One letter of objection had been received.
RESOLVED that the Order be made to convert the existing limited waiting parking spaces in the lay-by in Penn Hill Avenue (outside Bank Chambers) to a Taxi Rank between the hours of 7pm and 7am.
(b)Penn Hill Avenue/Spur Road/Spur Hill Avenue Junction
The proposal was to impose waiting restrictions to protect these junctions.
One objection had been received from the Manager of the Little Stars Nursery (39 Penn Hill Avenue) who felt that the restrictions should not extend so far into Spur Road.
A resident of 42 Penn Hill Avenue has asked that the restrictions be shortened to allow parking for residents and visitors.
Mr Tite advised that the restrictions had been proposed to keep the junctions clear of parked cars. The standard for junctions of this type was generally 15 metres although there was scope to reduce the extent of the restrictions opposite the junctions.
RESOLVED that the Order to impose waiting restrictions for 10 metres at the junctions of Penn Hill Avenue/Spur road/Spur Hill Avenue be made.
7.PUBLIC QUESTIONS AT AREA COMMITTEES – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
Public Question Time at Area Committees was designed to facilitate residents who wished to ask specific questions about issues relating to the area. It was reported that an increasing number of questions were being asked which were of a highly technical nature or relating to borough-wide issues.
Consideration was currently being given by the Working Party set up to review Area Committees, as to whether or not, in future, such questions should receive a written answer with no debate or directed to another forum or officer who could give a relevant answer.
AGREED that the report be noted.
8.QUESTIONS FROM MR T STEWART AND MR J SPRACKLING
Questions received from Mr Stewart and Sprackling before the meeting, together with written replies from the Borough of Poole were circulated at the meeting and are set out in the Appendix hereto. With regard to Question 6 “What is the Council’s response to the Region’s demand that Poole and Bournemouth bjuild another 42,000 houses by 2026”, it was asked that a meeting be held at a later date to discuss key points.
9.OPEN FORUM
(a)Mr Morrison, local resident, asked whether local funds could be used to improve the amenities of Canford Cliffs. There were specific problems respecting the vegetation on and around the Chine. Plants had been cut down on both sides of the Chine and the banks were deteriorating. The soil needed to be improved and suitable planting should be carried out to make the area more pleasant. The area immediately above the ice-cream kiosk required planting. Both sides of the path and steps down to the promenade also needed re-planting.
Pam Papani undertook to contact Clive Smith, Head of Leisure Services, with a view to setting up a site meeting, with Councillor Smith and other interested parties.
(b)Mr John Sprackling referred to the unauthorised felling of trees at the rear of Flaghead Manor Nursing Home, 4 Flaghead Road and damage to tree roots at 6 Nairn Road on 2 October 2004. He considered that the matter was taking an inordinate amount of time to resolve.
Councillor Parker indicated that a meeting had taken place the previous week at which it had been agreed that Enforcement Procedures would be reviewed.
Councillor Smith added that as part of the review the number of dedicated Enforcement Staff needed to deal with Enforcement issues would be looked at. He reminded those present that Planning Officers had to deal with planning applications in order to obtain the Planning Delivery Grant and did not therefore have the spare capacity to deal with enforcement issues.
(c)Mr Gunton, local resident, expressed concern about the proposals to erect mobile phone masts at Branksome Park.
He was advised that Planning applications would be submitted to the Planning Committee in due course. In response to a question asking whether or not all the masts were needed, Councillor Parker advised that so long as people were buying and using mobile phones, more masts would be needed.
(d)High Hedges – Charges
The Treasurer of the Branksome Residents Association considered that the charge of £350 was excessive. He said that the Borough of Poole should fix a price to cover the cost of investigation. In his view the legislation was complicated and poorly drafted. He said that £350 was too much for those who are on lower incomes and a sliding scale should be imposed.
Pam Papani undertook to refer the matter to Shaun Robson, Head of Consumer Protection and Environmental Services.
(e)A local resident complained about the horrendous amount of traffic coming into Poole. He stated that he used to be able to drive through Poole Park and if it was open to traffic between the hours of 8 to 9pm it would solve the problem.
Councillor Parker indicated that through traffic in Poole Park had been stopped because commuters had used it for car parking purposes. He suggested that the matter be referred to the Transport Action Group.
Steve Tite, Transportation Services, indicated that commuter traffic should be on proper roads.
Mrs Sieve, a local resident, referred to “down and outs” and “alcoholics” congregating at County Gates and at the top of The Avenue. She said that most had dogs with them.
One resident supported her statement and said that Bournemouth Borough Council was seeking an Order to keep drinking out of Westbourne.
Pam Papani undertook to refer the matter to Ian Cook, the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Officer.
CHAIRMAN
APPENDIX
CANFORD CLIFFS AND PENN HILL AREA COMMITTEE
15 JUNE 2005
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM MR T STEWART AND MR J SPRACKLING
- Question: What is the Council policy on maximum lead time for response to a resident’s question or request from Officers. (TS)
Answer: “In respect of replying to requests for information, the Council’s policy is to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This stipulates that public bodies must respond within 20 working days subject to the exemptions provided for in the Act such as the provisions of the Data Protection Act. There is no obligation to respond to specific requests if the information requested is already provided via the authority’s publication scheme which lists all the information that is published routinely.
Residents can and do ask questions through many different channels such as by telephone, email, letter or indeed during a face to face visit to reception desks. As part of the Customers First Programme the Council is reviewing its policy on response times to queries from the public. This will be encapsulated in a Customer Access and Service Strategy which has now been agreed by Cabinet. Work is well progressed to identify standards that will apply to Customers First”.
2.Question: 6 monthly report on Section 106 contributions for recreational purposes, broken out into the 5 categories, showing for each Ward:
(a)Contributions made – stating from what operative date.
(b)Expenditure made
(c)Balance unspent(TS)
Answer: (See Agenda Minute 4)
3.Question: Since the start of the administration, how many cases have been taken to court for breach of Planning Conditions and how many have been found guilty – what were the fines? (TS)
Answer: Breach of Planning Conditions is not as such a criminal offence. If a breach of planning condition occurs the normal sequence of responses by the Council is as follows:-
- The person responsible is advised by letter of the breach and what they must do to comply with the planning condition.
- If the breach continues, formal legal action is taken. This usually consists of the service of a Breach of Condition Notice but in some cases the service of an Enforcement Notice is used instead. The penalties for Breach of an Enforcement Notice are greater than for contravention of a Breach of Condition Notice but the recipient of an Enforcement Notice can appeal against the Notice to the Secretary of State and in this event the Notice does not come into force until the appeal is determined. This can take many months. The recipient of a Breach of Condition Notice has no right of appeal and typically this kind of notice comes into effect 28 days after service of the Notice although a longer period for compliance is sometimes given.
- If the breach continues after the Notice comes into force the recipient of the Notice is warned that if he persists a prosecution will result.
- In 2004 there was one prosecution for contravention of a Breach of Condition Notice. This related to take-away premises where the proprietor was selling later than the hours of operation permitted by the planning permission. The defendant pleaded ‘Guilty’ and was fined £300 and ordered to pay costs of £100. The maximum fine for contravention of a Breach of Condition Notice is £1,000 and in practice the fine is always lower than that where the defendant pleads ‘Guilty’.
4.Question: When will the Sub-Committee’s report on the future of Area Committees be published? (TS)
Answer: The Sub-Committee meetings are ongoing. No date for publication available at the present time.
5.Question: When will Poole Council publish a ‘Composite Rollout Plan’ for Telecommunications and police towers, as many other Councils have done? (TS)
Answer: The “composite roll-out plan” features in the ODPM advice note “Code of Best Practice on mobile phone network development” (2002). Paragraph 16 states:-
“LPAs may find it advantageous to compile all of the operators annual roll-out plans into a single plan for the whole administrative area”.
This is to assist negotiations with site sharing options during roll-out meetings. At the moment the Council is compiling a plan of all existing masts and antennae and have already received one operator’s roll-out plan. Plans are expected from three other operators before 1st July and those proposals will be compared and plotted using the map as a basis.
Of course, the fact that operators may wish to establish masts for coverage in specific areas and have shown that on their roll-out plans does not mean that the proposals will find favour with the Local Planning Authority nor that schemes which are permitted development will fall to be considered by the Council.
- Question: (a) What is the Council’s response to the Regions demand that Poole and Bournemouth build another 42,000 houses by 2026? (TS)
Answer: The question misunderstands the process of Regional Planning and the stage that it has currently reached.
A Subregional Strategy is being prepared for South East Dorset covering Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch and parts of Purbeck and East Dorset. Housing growth within the Subregion is a major element of the Strategy but the appropriate levels in South East Dorset are still being debated through a number of different Strategy options. A draft submission of a proposed strategy will be presented to the South West Regional Assembly in early June but Members of the Joint Committee for the South East Dorset Subregion have not yet agreed a strategy. The first detailed proposal will be made to the Regional Assembly in September when more work has been undertaken on housing growth. Thus the Section 4/4 Authorities of Dorset CC, Borough of Poole and Bournemouth BC will submit to the Regional Assembly the agreed strategy and housing growth for the Subregion in the Autumn.
At the same time the Regional Assembly is undertaking work on the housing growth to be accommodated in the Region but as yet it is not ‘demanding’ any housing figures of the Subregion. A draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) will be issued at the end of this year and the Subregional Authorities and the 4/4 Authorities separately may object to the content of the RSS. It is hoped that the Regional Assembly will accept the 4/4 Authorities’ advice but in the event that the Assembly propose a housing figure different from that advised then the Local Authorities will be able to make objections to the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and put their case to an Examination in Public in the Autumn 2006. A Panel from the Inspectorate will then report following the Examination and the Secretary of State will adopt the RSS in April 2007.
Regarding the figure of 42,000 dwellings, this is a broad estimate of the level of housing which could be reasonably accommodated in the Subregion to 2026. This rate of development is generally a continuation of the current rate and is for the Subregion and not just Poole and Bournemouth. However, no housing figures have been agreed at this stage.
Question: (b) Has the Council got the guts to fight this demand from the undemocratic quango? (TS)
Answer: Although the Regional Assembly is unelected as such it does comprise at least 60% elected Members.
The Council will have the opportunity to advise the Regional Assembly on an agreed level of housing growth. If the Regional Assembly does not choose to accept this advice and the draft RSS proposes a different level then the Council can object and make representation to the Examination in Public.
Question: (c) Which of the 3 alternative strategies that Region has proposed is supported by the Council?
(i)House cramming into the existing conurbation boundaries
(ii)Build over our Green Belt
(iii)New town at Lytchett (TS)
Answer: The Council has not yet made a decision as to which strategy it supports nor has the Subregional Joint Committee.
The choices are not as bleak as presented in the question and it may be that a mix and match approach is chosen with parts of some or all. Although housing development continues to take place within the conurbation the Local Plans across the area have strict policies for where and in what form new housing development can take place and development control decisions must be in accordance with these Plans. Inappropriate development should not take place under this level of control.
A Green Belt Review may identify some areas which no longer meet the purposes of Green Belt and where some development can take place. However, much of the Green Belt has double protection with designated nature conservation sites and these will limit opportunities to develop in the Green Belt. There is no appetite for large scale development in the Green Belt.
The ‘new town’ proposal at Lytchett has been investigated by consultants who have identified major constraints to development there.
7.Question: (a) Developers regularly avoid making an affordable housing contribution by limiting the number of units on any one site to 14 units or less. I gather that LPA’s have the power to insist on a lower than 15 dwelling threshold if they have the evidence of local need and that appeals have been won by LPA’s on just this subject. As there is “evidence of local need” in Poole, why don’t we adopt this practice? (JS)
Answer: The Council argued for a threshold of 15 units at the Local plan inquiry. The Inspector accepted the Council’s arguments. The Government guidance at the time suggested a threshold of 25 units unless exceptional circumstances could be justified and therefore, we must have been able to justify such circumstances. The Government is currently consulting on a change to the planning policy guidance for affordable housing and suggesting that the thresholds could be set lower than 15 as a rule. Other Council’s have achieved lower thresholds due to an ability to argue the case. We are unlikely to be able to respond to the guidance until the policy can be revisited through the new planning policy structure which will be in three years time.