The Meeting Commenced at 7:00Pm and Concluded at 9:27Pm

BOROUGH OF POOLE

COUNCIL

19 DECEMBER 2006

The Meeting commenced at 7:00pm and concluded at 9:27pm.

Present:

CouncillorMrs Butt (Mayor)

Councillor Allen (Sheriff)

CouncillorsAdams, Ms Atkinson, Belcham, Brooke, Bulteel, Burden, Clements, Collier, Curtis, Mrs Deas, Gillard, Mrs Hillman, Mrs Hives, Mrs Lavender, Leverett, Mason, Meachin, Newell, Parker, Pethen, Plummer, Rampton, Smith, Sorton, Mrs Stribley, Trent, White, Wilson, Miss Wilson and Woodcock.

Members of the public present at the Meeting: 8

Members of the Standards Committee present at the Meeting: 2

1.PRAYERS

Prayers were said.

2.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Eades, Mrs Dion, Knight (Deputy Mayor), Gregory, Mrs James, Matthews, Montrose and Mrs Moore.

3.MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the last Meeting of the Council held on 24 October 2006, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, confirmed and signed by the Mayor as a correct record subject to the deletion of ‘Councillor Mrs James’ in the list of Members apologising and the insertion of ‘Councillors Mrs Deas, Mrs James and Sorton’ in the list of Members present.

4.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Bulteel declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 12, “The Borough of Poole Gambling Act 2005 Final Draft Statement of the Principles: Report of the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Areas (including Leisure and Recreation)” as both his wife and daughter were employed in the Gambling industry.

Note: Councillor Bulteel declared his intention to leave the Chamber when this item was discussed.

5.MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS

The Mayor informed the Council that, in view of the length of the Agenda, she did not intend to list a number of communications but advised Members that so far, approximately £24,500 had been raised for her charities and she had attended 496 engagements.

6.GOOD WISHES

The Leader of the Council, the Leader of the Conservative Group and Liberal Democrat Group, joined in wishing the Mayor continuing good health following her recent serious illness and hospital stay. The Council joined in wishing the Mayor continued good health.

7.PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

There were no presentation of Petitions received from members of the public or from Members of the Council.

8.QUESTION FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

There were no Questions received.

9.DRAFT MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2007-2010: CONSULTATION FEEDBACK: REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CABINET AND LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

Councillor Leverett, the Leader, introduced his Report, outlining the feedback from residents and businesses regarding the Council’s Draft Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). The feedback from the Broadstone and Merley Area Committee of 6 December 2006 had been circulated to all Members of the Council and was considered along with the other comments from Area Committees.

Councillor Leverett sought the Council’s support for a “Fair Funding Campaign” for Poole as he felt that again, following the Local Government Finance Settlement recently announced, Poole’s funding was unfair in comparison with its nearest neighbours. Councillor Leverett explained that Poole only received £169 Formula Grant per head of population, less than half the national average for any Unitary Authorities, which he felt was not fair. Leicester, Middlesborough and Nottingham residents received over three times the Government support that Poole residents were given. Comparing similar figures since 2003, the average increase of all Unitary Authorities had risen by £63. Poole had only received £19. Because of the unfair system of Council Tax Banding, the average for all properties in Poole was £1,137 compared with Kingston-upon-Hull of £746 and, a national average of £981. The net result was that, across the whole country the Government provided an average of 53% of Local Authority budget requirement through the Grant Formula, leaving the Council Taxpayer to fund 47%. This situation was exacerbated by the above average percentage of population over retirement age, 23.9% for Poole and 18.6% for the rest of the country, which resulted in a far higher percentage on fixed incomes and the significant increase of an aging population brought to the cost of providing Adult Social Services. Poole’s younger population was faced with the very high housing cost when compared with other parts of the country. Whilst bringing up young families they were faced with the double whammy of servicing a bigger mortgage and paying higher Council Tax on average than in other parts of the country. In Poole, the situation was quite different. The Government provided a meagre 28% of the Council’s requirement, leaving the hard pressed Council Taxpayers to find 72% of the cost of providing services. As there seemed to be very little prospect of change unless the people of Poole, led by its Council, fight for their entitlement for a fairer share of Local Government funding, the Leader called on the Council to rally support for the launch of a “Fair Funding for Poole Campaign”.

The Motion at Agenda Item 15(iv) “Unfair Funding for Poole” was also considered and debated with this item and an amendment tabled which had cross party support.

A Member commented that the children of Poole were not treated fairly, receiving £320 less than the average £822 received by Manchester children for education. He also referred to the over sixties population with the Borough having to provide 36,000 people with free bus passes. The Government had supplied 800,000 to the Council, which was less than £22 per head and the Council had to find another 600,000 to fund these bus passes. Torbay, which had a population of 34,000 over sixties residents was given £1.425Million from Government, amounting to £37 per head subsidy for bus passes. She felt that the Council had no alternative but to press the Government to address these inequalities.

She thanked the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group for supporting the Motion and supplying the amendment so the Motion read:

“This Council deplores the totally inadequate and grossly unfair revenue support grant settlement received from Government which further widens the gap between well and poorly funded local authorities. We call upon Government immediately to begin to resolve this inequitable situation by at least giving Poole and other poorly funded authorities above average settlements in the next few years, pending a more transparent and fairer system of Local Government Finance that does not disadvantage areas of high housing costs and takes better account of individuals ability to pay.”

A Member commented that the amendment clarified the fact that funding for schools was ring fenced and that the Council Tax system currently mitigated against Poole. He was pleased that Members were able to support the amendment.

RESOLVED

(i)that Council note the feedback from statutory consultees and residents on the draft Medium Term Financial Plan 2007-2010;

(ii)that Council continue to support the case for working with colleagues across the Council to implement a fair funding campaign for Poole and use lobbying opportunities where appropriate; and

(iii)that Council deplores the totally inadequate and grossly unfair Revenue Support Grant Settlement received from Government which further widens the gap between well and poorly funded authorities. We call upon the Government immediately to begin to resolve this inequitable situation by at least giving Poole and other poorly funded authorities above average settlements in the next few years, pending a more transparent and fairer system of Local Government Finance that does not disadvantage areas of high housing costs and takes better account of individuals ability to pay.

10.VIREMENT WITH STATEMENT OF SERVICE: CHILDREN’S FUND GRANT: REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Woodcock, introduced this item, explaining that, in accordance with the Council’s Financial Regulation, a virement over £250,000 required Council approval.

Approval was sought to vire £290,000 within the Children’s Services of the Children’s Fund Grant received via the Children and Young People block of the Council’s Local Area Agreement. It was noted that this grant was aimed at assisting with Higher Education and Looked After Children costs.

RESOLVED that, in accordance with the Council’s Financial Regulations, a virement of £290,000 allocation of the Children’s Fund Grant received via the Children and Young People block of the Council’s Local Area Agreement, be approved.

11.THE DORSET HEATHLANDS INTERIM PLANNING FRAMEWORK 2006-2009: REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR LOCAL ECONOMY (INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION)

The Portfolio Holder introduced his Report, explaining that the Joint Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006-2009 Public Consultation Document and responses received had been considered by the Local Economy Overview Group and Cabinet at its Meeting on 5 December 2006.

Councillor Parker outlined the issues which impacted upon residential development, explaining that he thought there were two main concerns in both the process and the manner in which Natural England had brought forward its objections to the EU Directives, recognizing that it was under pressure to ensure the integrity of the Heathlands but he felt the manner in which Natural England had felt that the process adopted by Natural England left a lot to be desired.

The Borough Councils of Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset County Council and its Dorset District Councils had sought a planning framework to mitigate against the impact on residential development. He explained that Poole had led Framework discussions for the Interim Framework to secure developer contributions. He explained that any planning application within the 5 Kilometer radius of the Heathland would attract an objection from Natural England. Should the Planning Authority be minded to grant an application the Secretary of State would be likely to call it in. He explained that if the Council did not make provision for Heathland mitigation then there would be an embargo on development. He informed the Council that a Joint Scrutiny Panel, comprising an elected Member representative from each of the six local authorities in Dorset, together with representatives from Natural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the House Builders Federation was to be established to review the list of mitigation schemes.

Cabinet had expressed concern over the arrangements for governance of the Scheme, feeling that Unitary Authorities should have more than one elected representative. Councillor Parker explained that any reluctance to support this interim policy would impact on the local economy. He explained that all the District Councils had reluctantly endorsed the Interim Planning Framework. This Interim Framework would be replaced as part of the Local Planning Development Framework at a later date, underpinned by research. He outlined the proposals before Council, asking Council to (i) “reluctantly accept the principles of the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006-2009 as a basis for residential planning applications and (ii) that arrangements for the governance of the Scheme be considered by Cabinet for final approval.

He referred to the Motion detailed in the Council Agenda “Loss of Localism” in the following terms:

“This Council wishes to protest to Government in the strongest possible terms about further loss of localism in that Natural England (formerly English Nature) can now require Local Authorities to channel into their area of influence monies secured from developments. This removes the ability of Councils to decide on behalf of the people they represent how these monies should be spent. Such regulation will inevitably result in significant loss of funding for affordable housing and other essential community provision” and asked Council to consider adopting an amendment to this Motion in the following terms:

Amendment

“Given the assumption that this Council already maximizes development contributions, then the mitigation required by Natural England in respect of proposed developments within the “5 Kilometer radius” will

• significantly impact upon Section 106 Agreements by “top slicing”. This will greatly reduce funding for affordable housing and other essential community provision;
• considerably diminish the right of a Local Authority to decide how best to allocate Section 106 Contribution within its area of authority.

This Council therefore protests to Government in the strongest possible terms, at the way in which Natural England is affectively holding to ransom local authorities in order to access a funding stream that was previously within the Council’s own remit to allocate.”

The above Amendment.

A number of Members spoke against the Amendment, agreeing that the way in which Natural England had chosen to impose its objections was regrettable, pointing out that Natural England was a Government quango, explaining that they felt this action was a further diminution of democratic accountability from Councilors. It was suggested that the Local Government Association should be lobbied and that the Council should consider a referendum and launching a national campaign. Some Members felt that by accepting the amendment the Council had lost the argument that protesting to Government was not enough once an interim policy had been agreed. It was felt that there was no ownership of this interim policy by Members.

A Member expressed particular concern as her Ward comprised of a majority of Heathland and she queried who was to pay for play facilities in Wallisdown and Alderney West? She urged the Council not to “reluctantly accept” the Interim Policy but to make representations to Government first.

A number of Members spoke in favour of the Amendment, explaining that the Interim Strategy was supported as during the three years it was in place research and more work would be done to ensure there was a better strategy in the future. Research was required to challenge Natural England during the three years of the life of the Interim Policy. A number of Members agreed that the Interim Policy had to be “reluctantly accepted”, explaining that, should the Policy not be adopted every residential application could be called in affected by the Heathlands Policy and the Council may have to pay large sums of money in compensation.

The requisite number of Members requested that voting be recorded.

Note: Councillors Clements and Parker declared personal interests as members of the South West Regional Assembly.

Councillor Allen declared a personal interest as a member of the Fire Authority.

It was moved and seconded

(i)that Council reluctantly accept the principles of the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006/9 as a basis for determining residential planning applications.

For:Councillors Adams, Ms Atkinson, Belcham, Bulteel, Burden, Collier, Mrs Deas, Gillard, Mrs Hillman, Mrs Hives, Mrs Lavender, Leverett, Newell, Parker, Pethen, Rampton, Smith, Sorton, Mrs Stribley and White

Against: Councillors Allen, Brooke, Clements, Curtis, Meachin, Plummer, Wilson and Miss Wilson

Abstained: Councillors Trent, Mason and Woodcock.

The Mayor took no part in the vote.

(ii)that arrangements for the governance of the Scheme be considered by Cabinet for final approval.

For:Councillors Adams, Allen, Ms Atkinson, Belcham, Bulteel, Burden, Collier, Mrs Deas, Gillard, Mrs Hillman, Mrs Hives, Mrs Lavender, Leverett, Newell, Parker, Pethen, Rampton, Smith, Sorton, Mrs Stribley, White and Woodcock

Against: Councillors Clements, Curtis, Mason, Meachin, Plummer, Wilson and Miss Wilson

Abstained: Councillors Trent, Brooke and Woodcock

The Mayor took no part in the vote.

(iii)“Given the assumption that this Council already maximizes Developer Contributions then the mitigation required by Natural England in respect of proposed developments within the 5 kilometer radius will:

• significantly impact upon Section 106 Agreements by “top slicing”. This will greatly reduce funding for affordable housing and other essential community provision.

• Considerably diminish the right of a local authority to decide how best to allocate Section 106 contributions within its area of authority.

This Council therefore protests to Government in the strongest possible terms at the way in which Natural England is effectively holding to ransom local authorities in order to access a funding stream that was previously within the Council’s own remit to allocate.

For:Councillors Adams, Allen, Ms Atkinson, Belcham, Brooke, Bulteel, Burden, Clements, Collier, Curtis, Mrs Deas, Gillard, Mrs Hillman, Mrs Hives, Mrs Lavender, Leverett, Meachin, Newell, Parker, Plummer, Rampton, Smith, Sorton, Mrs Stribley, Trent, White, Wilson, Miss Wilson and Woodcock

Against: Councillor Pethen

Abstained: Councillor Mason