BOROUGH OF POOLE

BROADSTONE, MERLEY AND BEARWOOD AREA COMMITTEE

18 MARCH 2009

The Meeting commenced at 7:00pm and concluded at 9.37pm

Members of the Committee present:

Councillor Mrs Long (in the Chair)

Councillors Brooke, Brown, Maiden and Mason

Members of the public present: 25

BMB29.09APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Martin.

BMB30.09DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Mrs Long declared a personal interest in various items on the Agenda as a Member of the Planning Committee.

Councillor Brooke declared a personal interest in M.BMB32.09 (Broadstone Planning Applications, including Fairlight Hotel Scheme), as he had been lobbied by Prime Tower.

Councillor Brown declared a personal interest in M.BMB32.09 (Broadstone Planning Applications, including Fairlight Hotel Scheme), as he had been lobbied by Prime Tower and various other items, as a Member of the Planning Committee.

BMB31.09MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 January 2009 as having previously been circulated, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

BMB32.09BROADSTONE PLANNING APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING FAIRLIGHT HOTEL SCHEME

The Chairman stated that as Representatives from Prime Tower had been invited to attend this Meeting, he would take consideration of this item first.

Councillor Brooke introduced the item by giving a brief background to the history of this site which had been derelict for many years.

The Chairman introduced Mr Paul Harper and Mr Alistair Scott from Prime Tower who then addressed the Committee.

Mr Harper, Commercial Manager, Prime Tower, commenced by stating that they had now owned the Fairlight Hotel site since 1995, together with 1 Golf Links Road.

He stated that in 2007, they commissioned a Needs Assessment in Broadstone undertaken by The Elderly Advisory Council, towards the possible provision of a sheltered retirement home for the area. At that time, progress was not able to be made due to English Nature’s restrictions regarding heathland developments (within a 400m radius of heathland).

Subsequent Feasibility Studies were undertaken which indicated a major demand for such a facility within the area together with the potential creation of 30 plus new jobs.

Prime Tower had submitted a Planning Application to the Council for a Care Home, comprising a 61 bed scheme with 2 further rooms for staff required to stay overnight, together with 19 car parking spaces.

Mr Alistair Scott, Prime Tower, referred to the fact that Broadstone had been designated as a “Local Centre” and also made reference to the Council’s Core Strategy and the Sustainable Communities Act, both of which he felt this Scheme would complement.

The Scheme would comprise 3 detached buildings on the site (a hotel and 2 other buildings) together with 2 clumps of substantial trees. Four vehicular accesses were proposed to the site although there was scope to reduce this. It was also intended that the car park would be located at the rear of the buildings with 2 disabled spaces being provided at the front together with a drop off point for the Ambulance Service.

In response to a question raised regarding how the car parking numbers had been arrived at, the Committee were advised that national statistics had been used in determining this allocation.

In relation to the above, a number of residents raised concerns regarding where visitors would park if a space was not available within the site.

In relation to the possibility of “freeing up” of family properties in Broadstone, a resident questioned how it could be ensured that these were provided to local people? The Committee was advised that there was a “local” demand so they were confident that these advantages could be offered to the local community.

In conclusion, Councillor Brooke advised the Committee that information on the Application was now available on the website and in addition, the usual Planning Consultation Process would shortly commence. This would be the opportunity for local residents to submit their views on the Application.

The Chairman thanked the representatives from Prime Tower for their interesting and informative presentation.

RESOLVED that the Presentation be noted.

BMB33.09PARKING ENFORCEMENT, INCLUDING THE ROLE OF THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Councillor Brooke introduced the Item by stating that this had originally been requested by Mr Godfrey. Kay English, Parking Services Manager, had been invited to attend this meeting in order to give a brief presentation on parking enforcement and respond to any questions regarding the role/powers of Enforcement Officers.

Kay English, Parking Services Manager, commenced by stating that prior to 2002, parking enforcement had been the responsibility of the Police. However, this power had now transferred to the Local Authority and was carried out “in house” by a well trained team comprising 20 Civil Enforcement Officers together with 7 Dedicated Parking Officers.

In response to a question raised, Kay English, Parking Services Manager, advised that approximately 20,000 parking tickets were issued every year but this was reducing.

Kay English, Parking Services Manager, advised that the Local Authority was responsible for the enforcement of yellow line contraventions although the Police did still have some responsibility for minor cases (eg, blocking in/parking on pedestrian crossings, etc).

She advised the Committee that there was now a Centre of Excellence for the training of Civil Enforcement Officers (NVQ).

The Committee was advised that only 1% of parking tickets issued were appealed against. A further 20% were challenged in other ways with approximately 15-20% of these ultimately being cancelled. There was a statutory process that needed to be followed when tickets were not paid which could ultimately result in the issuing of Warrants/Instructions to Bailiffs, however, it was always the Council’s aim to be as “transparent” as possible.

With regard to the issuing of parking tickets, a resident stated that receivers of these felt that they were deemed guilty from the start, as they were advised to pay the fine and then appeal.

The Parking Services Manager, advised that parking tickets could be challenged within 14 days adding that when dealt with outside of this time period due to no fault of the recipient, there would still be an option to pay the discounted rate. She added that payment was a “acceptance of liability”.

A resident stated that he felt the language used on the parking tickets was somewhat threatening and questioned whether the Parking Enforcement Officers were on a “bonus scheme”.

Kay English, Parking Services Manager, assured the Committee that no such bonus schemes were in place.

In response to a question raised regarding how many visits were made to Broadstone by the Parking Enforcement Officers, Kay English, Parking Services Manager, advised that Broadstone would usually receive 3 foot patrol visits a week as well as moped visits. In addition, a “response” service was also in operation. Shifts for the Parking Enforcement Officers were 8am – 10pm.

In response to a question raised regarding where any “profit” from parking tickets went, Kay English, Parking Services Manager, advised that any surplus income was used to cover the operation of the Service. Any funds over and above this was “ring fenced” income for road/traffic schemes. It was agreed that a report be presented to a future Meeting of this Area Committee detailing where any surplus income was allocated.

A Member questioned whether it was possible to focus on Task Areas that were known to have a particular problem (Toast Rack) with a view to blitzing these areas periodically.

The Parking Services Manager, stated that this already happened in order to target resources accordingly.

The Chairman referred to problems that she was aware of regarding both the abuse of Blue Badges and also people who parked in a disabled space when they were not eligible.

The Parking Services Manager, advised that Officers could not confiscate a Blue Badge without calling the Police first. In addition, she advised that quite a number of tickets were issued for people parking in disabled spaces when they were not eligible and she would provide this information direct to the Councillor.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman thanked Kay English, Parking Services Manager, for her extremely interesting presentation.

RESOLVED that the Presentation on Parking Enforcement be noted.

BMB34.09SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT

Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, presented a report outlining the implications of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 for Borough of Poole and its residents. In his opening remarks, he described the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 as a permissive piece of Legislation aimed at encouraging local communities to come forward, via their local council, with ideas and proposals to promote the sustainability of their local area. Cabinet, at its Meeting on 3 March 2009 had resolved that each of the Council’s Area Committees consider the implications of the Act so that the Council would be able to gauge the level of enthusiasm amongst residents towards engaging in this process and to hear suggestions for areas of policy that the Committee and members of the public present felt should receive further consideration under the Act. Such suggestions would then be relayed to the Council Working Party appointed to consider this matter further.

During reference to his Report, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services highlighted that: -

  • The primary principle behind the Act was that local people know best what needs to happen to promote the sustainability of their area, but that sometimes Central Government had unwittingly placed obstacles in the way of progress in the past.
  • ‘Sustainability’ was defined in the Act in very broad terms, covering anything that could improve the economic, social, or environmental well-being of the area, or promote participation in civic or political activity.
  • The Act required The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to periodically issue invitations to submit proposals, together with deadlines within which such proposals must be received and then assessed by the ‘Selector’. (It was also noted that the first ‘window’ for proposals announced on 14 October 2008 would close on 31 July 2009).
  • All proposals made under the Act would need to be submitted via local councils, who would then discuss it with local panels to decide which proposals to send onto a national ‘Selector’ body, whose role is to consider proposals made under the Act. (It was noted that the Local Government Association had been appointed to the role of ‘Selector’ by Central Government). A final shortlist of proposals would then be submitted to the Secretary of State.
  • A basic criterion was that all proposals require some form of action from Central Government such as a change in legislation, a transfer of responsibilities from one public body to another, a new national policy or a change or strengthening of policy.
  • Ultimately, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government would decide which proposals to put into effect, but in doing so, the Act would require her/him to co-operate with the ‘Selector’, (i.e. the Local Government Association), to ‘try to reach agreement’ over the proposals.The Secretary of State would then be required to publish reasons for decisions, an action plan on how proposals would be implemented, together with an annual report to Parliament each year on progress being made under the Act.
  • Before making proposals, a local authority must ‘have regard’ to a list of matters set out in the Schedule to the Act, reflecting issues of concern raised by organisations which supported the Act during its passage through Parliament, such as preserving local jobs, services and facilities, energy conservation, sustainable transport and food production. (A copy of the Schedule was circulated at the Meeting).
  • It would be possible for a single resident of the locality to suggest a proposal, via their council. However, the Government’s expectation was that most proposals would emanate collectively from community organisations, neighbourhood forums, residents and tenants associations, for example.
  • There was not a specific Central Government budget available to distribute under the Act. Therefore, although proposals might be made to the Government that requiring new funding, it appeared that, if successful, such proposals would need to be resourced from existing public funds.

A resident referred to the poor funding settlement received from the Government by Poole, 27% against a national average of 51% and requested that this be raised with the Government towards achieving a more equitable funding settlement for Poole.

A Member commented that if the Borough of Poole joined with other Councils on issues of shared interest, then we would have a “stronger voice” on how grant money was spent. He felt that there would then be a greater freedom to decide on how this funding was spent (Post Offices / enhanced bus routes, etc) and that there was a need to put pressure on the Government to change the laws in this area in order that more determination could be made locally.

In response to a question raised regarding “responsibility”, a Member stated that it would ultimately be the Council who would make a submission on this, but it would be down to local residents to determine and influence the content of this submission.

Mr Godfrey advised the Committee that the Broadstone Residents Association would be submitting its own “Wish List”. He questioned why this item had not been considered by the recent “Stronger Communities” Meeting. Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, stated that he would undertake to ensure that all appropriate Groups were consulted on this matter.

A Member questioned whether the implementation of this Act could mean that the responsibility for provision of services could move from one Local Authority to another. Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, stated that this could potentially happen but added that this would not have any implications regarding changes to the Borough Boundary.

RESOLVED that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, be thanked for his presentation and that the points raised be noted and fed into the Council Working Party appointed to consider this matter further.

BMB35.09BROADSTONE CHARACTER APPRAISAL

Councillor Brooke advised that he had now met with Officers in order to pursue Broadstone’s “Character of Place” further. He concluded by stating that he would now be seeking to progress this with all interested Groups/Representatives.

RESOLVED that the update Report be noted.

BMB36.09HIGHER BLANDFORD ROAD, SPEEDING

Councillor Brooke introduced the Item by stating that following complaints about speeding in Higher Blandford Road, Transportation Services had now surveyed vehicle speeds at 3 different locations along Higher Blandford Road on 29 January 2009, between 10.00am and 11.00am. The locations were:-

  • Outside Corfe Hill School.
  • At the vehicle activated sign (83 Higher Blandford Road).
  • On the approach to the traffic signals at the Springdale Road junction.

Results were as follows:-

Higher Blandford Road Speed Data for Southbound Vehicles (29 January
2009, 10.00am to 11.00am)
Location / Average (mph) / 85th%ile (mph)
Automatic Traffic Counter outside Corfe Hills School / 32 / 37
Outside no.83 Higher Blandford Road (from VAS sign) / n/a / 32
Outside no.48 Higher Blandford Road (on approach to signals) / 29 / 33

The Committee was advised that this information had also been sent to the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership in order to assist with their enforcement.

On looking at these figures, it was evident that the greatest problem was in the vicinity of Corfe Hill School which was where the Mobile Enforcement currently took place. The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership was informed when the Vehicle Activated Sign was working here so that they could avoid these times if necessary.

In relation to complaints regarding heavy goods vehicle movements in this area, the Committee was advised that in 1998, the Traffic Sub-Committee had considered a request for a lorry ban in the Higher Blandford Road area. Surveys at that time indicated that the volume and proportion of heavy goods vehicles using Higher Blandford Road and Spingdale Road were not unduly high in comparison with other similar roads in the Borough and therefore, the Committee did not feel able to justify restricting heavy goods vehicle movements in the area. Following more recent complaints, a survey had been undertaken last week which indicated that, although the amount of traffic had increased on Higher Blandford Road and Springdale Road since the survey undertaken in 1998, the volume and proportion of heavy goods vehicles was lower than before. The recent survey results are summarised below:-

Road / No. of HGVs / Total Traffic / % HGVs
Higher Blandford Rd(N)
1998 Survey / 70 / 8,586 / 0.8
2009 Survey / 65 / 9,511 / 0.7
Higher Blandford Rd(S)
1998 Survey / 106 / 13,356 / 0.8
2009 Survey / 78 / 14,312 / 0.5
Springdale Road
1998 Survey / 38 / 5,940 / 0.6
2009 Survey / 21 / 7,399 / 0.3

These are 2 way flows during a 12 hr. survey period