BOROUGH OF POOLE

HAMWORTHY EAST AND WEST AND POOLE TOWN AREA COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON

WEDNESDAY 20SEPTEMBER 2006

AT ST GABRIEL’S CHURCH HALL, KEYSWORTH ROAD, POOLE

The meeting commenced at 7.00 p.m. and concluded at 8.55 p.m.

Members of the Committee present:

Councillor Knight (Chairman)

Councillors Bulteel, Collyer, Gregory and Leverett,

Members of the public in attendance: Approx. 18.

  1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors White and Wretham.

  1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Knight declared a personal interest in Item 4d School Travel Plans due to his involvement in school services.

  1. MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING

RESOLVED that subject to

the replacement of the words ‘Hamworthy Residents’ Association’ with the words ‘Hamside Residents’ Association’ in the first paragraph of Minute 8c Open Forum – Shapwick Road.

the Minutes of the last Meeting of the Area Committee held on 26July 2006, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman,

Matters arising from the Minutes:

Minute 8(e) – Harbourside Park

In response to a resident’s question, The Open Spaces Manager, Matti Raudsepp confirmed that the Transportation Unit was in the process of assessing alternative proposals and that no action would be taken until the assessment was complete.

Minute 8(f) – Email Protocol

In response to a resident’s question, Councillor Gregory explained that a commitment to the email protocol could not be given until Units were within Customer First. While every effort was made to respond as swiftly as possible, due to technical issues it was not possible to ensure that responses were made within the time laid down, particularly if addressee staff were not present in the office.

Minute 8(h) – Hamworthy-Upton Bus Service

It was reported that a resident, had stated that the Hamworthy-Upton Bus Service 9 provided very bad service with buses simply failing to arrive. The uncertainty makes the service impossible to use so people drive rather than attempt to use the unreliable service. In addition the buses travel along Holes Bay Road where there are no bus stops.

In response to a resident’s question, Councillor Leverett confirmed that he had sought to have the bus stops no longer served covered but this was not possible as although the service was greatly reduced, buses did still stop at the large majority of the stops. Councillor Gregory confirmed that he had arranged for the words ‘Restricted Service Only’ to be appended to the stops.

Minute 8(i), Cycling Facilities

As requested, the Principal Engineer (Projects) had, by way of clarification, confirmed that a total of £572,000 was spent on the provision of cycle facilities between 2001 – 2006 together with £171,000 from developer contributions and other budgets. The expenditure had provided Cycle lanes either on the road (e.g. Sandbanks Road) 10 No. or 7Kms or Cycle Tracks on the verge (e.g. Gravel Hill) 10 no. or 6Kms, Advanced Stop Lines 16 No, Toucan Crossings (like Pelican Crossing but with Cycle Facilities) 3 No. Developer funding was often spent on Cycle parking stands or "bins", signs or part contributions to other schemes. The budget for the current year (2006/07) was £164,000.

In response to a resident’s concerns, it was AGREED that when a question was asked by a representative of an organisation, the individual not be identified in the agenda and Minutes of Meetings of the Committee.

  1. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

a)OBJECTION TO TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS – HINCHLIFFE ROAD

The Committee considered the Report of the Acting Head of Transportation Services relating to objections received as a result of the advertisement of Traffic Regulation Orders.

The following email has been received from Mr & Mrs Rawlins, owners of 20 & 22Hinchliffe Road;

“It is unfortunate that we were not in attendance personally at the meeting 26th July 2006, this was due in part to our mother's hospitalisation at that time. I did contact the transportation department and I was told that our issue was scheduled to be the last item on the agenda that evening. We were reassured that attendance in person was not strictly necessary as

(i)We had contacted the transportation dept. and made a written submission to which you are aware of.

(ii)There were no other formal objections recorded at that time to indicate our wishes would be refused.

I was also told in the unlikely event of the yellow line extension proceeding there would be a 3-month period in which we could appeal.

The relevant facts to consider are these.

We own, freehold, both properties, 20 & 22 Hinchliffe Road.

Both properties would be immediately/most affected by the proposal to extend yellow lines.

Our elderly parents occupy No.20. Our mother is registered disabled and requires 24-hour oxygen supply, this property has been altered to accommodate her needs. Evidence of her disabled status can be provided.

No.22 is currently having plans drawn up to be submitted in the near future to have a similar conversion. This property is currently let on a short-term tenancy agreement. This gentleman is currently actively looking to relocate permanently in this area.

On his vacation it is our intention to move our parents from No.20 to No.22 whilst we undertake necessary remedial works on No.20, which involves completely removing the roof and re-felting with a breathable membrane and re-tiling. Due to her breathing condition, our mother can not stay in this property whilst this work is being undertaken.

From the explanation of these personal details it is hopefully apparent that delayment/curtailment of the extension to the yellow lines is still relevant in as much that disabled occupation of both properties is likely for the future.

This we believe is the same situation that was recognised in 2004 and remains the same now.”

Although it was reported that the area was not a high priority for the Police as few accidents had been reported, residents expressed the view that the area was very dangerous with a large number of collisions taking place. It was felt inappropriate that exception should be given which would lead to increased danger. It was stressed that many large vehicles, often towing, used this road and this involved travel in the middle of the road.

RESOLVED that the implementation of the extension of the parking restrictions be delayed until the works to be undertaken to 20 and 22Hinchliffe Road is completed.

UNANIMOUS.

b)SYMES ROAD PARKING

The Committee considered the Acting Head of Transportation’s Report on the consultations on parking issues in Symes Road.

Councillor Gregory stressed that the length of road outside no.s 72-58 would be kept under review and restrictions would be inevitable if parking remained an issue.

RESOLVED that;

i)the response to Ward Councillors’ consultation be noted;

ii)the following works be approved for implementation

  1. No waiting at any time at the junction of the cul-de-sac serving no.s 5 – 21 Symes Road as shown on the plan accompanying the Report;
  2. Installation of timber bollards to prevent parking on the grass area alongside no 93 Symes Road

c)DAVID WAY FOOTPATH BARRIERS

The Committee considered the Acting Head of Transportation’s Report on suggestions for deterring motorcyclists from using the cycle/footpath at the end of David Way.

Councillor Knight reported overwhelming support for barriers following a letter drop to residents in the area.

RESOLVED that the Scheme be implemented as shown on the drawing accompanying the Report.

UNANIMOUS.

d)SCHOOL TRAVEL PLANS, SUMMER 2006

The Committee noted the Report of the Acting Head of Transportation’s Report on the progress made with the preparation of School Travel Plans.

The Senior Passenger Co-ordinator, Nick Ellis stressed that the Plans could only be developed through the co-operation of the wider school community.

In response to residents’ questions, Nick Ellis stated that;

  • He would welcome an invitation to assist in a review of the Plan at Hamworthy First School from representatives of the school
  • A considerable number of school buses were provided for various schools
  • Although provision could be made it was not always possible to persuade parents to use this for the journey to school. He was a ware that in some cases it was financially beneficial to drive children to school.
  • Recent legislation did allow the occasional transport of children in cars without the use of suitable child seats but he recognised that the legislation could lead to discouraging car sharing.
  • In the event of fouling of footpaths on a journey to school route, he could arrange priority cleansing

The Chairman thanked the Senior Passenger Co-ordinator for attending the Meeting.

RESOLVED that the Report be noted.

  1. FACILITY ENHANCEMENT – POOLE CYCLE SPEEDWAY CLUB

The Committee considered the Report of the Head of Leisure Services relating to the enhancement of the Poole Cycle Speedway Club facility situated at Baiter Park.

The Recreation Development Team Leader, Andy Dayus, drew Members’ attention to aspects of the Report including;

  • The club was founded in 1974
  • The club had been at its present location since 1981
  • There was a need for an early enhancement programme
  • The club was anticipating hosting the World junior Championships in July 2007
  • The club would be able to make a 10% cash contribution together with a considerable labour donation by a voluntary workforce

In response to a resident’s question, Andy Dayus confirmed that it was proposed that a contribution of £22,000 be made through the Planning Obligation Work Group

In response to a resident’s question, Mr Colin Sutton, representing the club confirmed that security of the buildings had been considered. It was generally considered that making the club as inconspicuous as possible had been successful in avoiding unwanted attention but he agreed that simple motion detecting security lights would be a possible improvement.

RESOLVED that, in principle;

  1. the continuation of use of the facilities by Poole Cycle Speedway Club be approved;
  2. the improvements to the track, building and external infrastructure from developer contributions for casual play and amenity open space collected and held within Poole Town Ward be supported.
  1. OPEN FORUM

The following questions had been submitted by residents.

  1. HAMWORTHY PARK

The following question had been received from the Chairman, Hamside Residents’ Association;

‘Arising from the response given to item 12: Waterfront Museum Refurbishment* when compared to the response provided for Agenda Item 5: Hamworthy Park on 26 July 2006 (*included in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 8March 2006 at St James Church Hall which were attached to the Agenda for the Area Committee held on 26July 2006).

It is disappointing to note that Hamworthy Park does not attract funding similar to that of the Waterfront Museum. The £75,000 currently being made available will not even begin to address the priorities of urgent work identified as being necessary as a consequence of consultation process for the new Management Plan.

Could we please be advised as to how much income is generated from:

  1. Beach hut rents
  2. The Marine Activities Centre
  3. The Café
  4. The Fair
  5. Property Maintenance Budget
  6. Disabled Access Funding
  7. Public Donations

Also

a)What share in terms of £sd does the Park receive from 106 Agreements?

b)Should Poole Yacht Club and Rockley Park be invited to provide a financial contribution for their usage of the Park and the Beach?

c)Have any investigations been carried out to ascertain whether the recent dredging undertaken by the Harbour Commissioners has added to the scouring problem - causing further sand-loss to the beach?

d)Has the Coastal Protection Agency been approached for funding to provide additional Groynes, repairs to the existing Sea Wall?

When is the Park going to receive the financial recognition befitting its status as a District Park within the Borough?’

Response

Income generated based on 2006/07 budget unless stated. Income may be forthcoming but these may by partially offset by (or exceeded by) expenditure in operational costs;

  1. Hamworthy Beach Hut rent income £14k (costs incurred in administering all beach huts approx 75% of income);
  2. Marine Activity Centre £113k income (including £45k Education contribution), net cost nil;
  3. Cafe £5k rent, repairs & maintenance as required (not sure of exact maintenance requirements by tenant/Leisure as per lease);
  4. Fair £3k income this year, cost of administration/ monitoring/restating site;
  5. Paddling Pool £9k expenditure, also repairs & maintenance of toilets/cafe when required (no specific budgets for each building);
  6. Disabled Access Funding - none planned 2006/07;
  7. Public Donations - no budget.

And

a)The park does not automatically receive a share of any s106 contribution. The contributions are collected under ward headings so balances reflect where development occurs. Once the funds have been collected (usually from all residential development) bids are made to the Planning Obligations Sub Group to allocate them to a specific project. The amount of funding that can be bid for is generally limited by what has been collected in the ward in which the project is planned. So, in the case of Hamworthy Park, we are bidding for the £75,000 that is currently available in the ward pot. It is possible that when all the planning obligations have been received from the Shapwick Road development we will be able to bid for another sum for further improvements in the park.

b)We generally charge a licence fee for commercial enterprises that operate from our land, although exceptions apply according to the circumstances. Poole Yacht club use the park as their slipway enters the water from the park. When they are having an event that requires use of the beach they obtain a licence but to date no charge has been made for this. Essentially the event is on the water rather than the park.

With respect to Rockley Park I assume it is meant that their customers use the park as part of their holiday. Such use however is to be expected and could not be charged for, although Rockley could be approached to see if they would be willing to make a contribution to the facilities their business benefits from.

c)Monitoring is carried out as part of a national coastal erosion programme and Hamworthy Park is included in this. The aim of this programme is to identify trends over time and consequently it would be too early to draw firm conclusions from the dredging operations in the harbour.

d)A bid was made in 1997 for funding to construct additional groynes. That was unsuccessful on the grounds that it was not a high enough priority. Since then funding to deliver such works has declined further and so the likelihood of a successful bid now is further diminished.

Leisure Services manages the resources available to it as efficiently and effectively as possible. There are aspirations for improvements to open spaces, and Leisure services more generally, all over the Borough and we work to deliver improvements within the context of available resources and the Council's priorities. District Park status does not in itself create either capital or revenue increases, although it raises the profile of the park and in turn this can influence our priorities. This has led to increased officer input into the development of the new management plan and the forthcoming project to improve play facilities. It also led to greater involvement from beach staff in relation to signage and water quality testing which culminated in a Seaside Award this year. We remain committed to the improvement of the park for existing and future users.

In response to the responses included in the agenda, the following request for clarification had been received from the Chairman, Hamside Residents’ Association;

‘How much has been collected as a result of S106 (over the last three or four years if a breakdown is not easily obtained) and what percentage has been received?’

Response

For the period 2002-2006, excluding the specific Shapwick Road S106 money received (£69,613), £103,765 has been received in total for Hamworthy East and divided up between the various funds with £19,392 going into Equipped Children’s play fund and £76,518 going into Casual Play and Amenity Open Space fund.

The amount of planning obligations funding spent in the park:

Equipped Children’s Play fund: / £6,000 / spent in 2000-2001 on Ham Park and Dawkins Road;
Total £6,000
Casual Play and Amenity Open Space fund: / £21,442 / spent in 2002-2003 on works for Ham Park Management Plan
£20,000 / spent in 2002-2003 on Turlin Moor Skate Park
£13,974 / spent in 2003-2004 on works for Ham Park Management Plan
Total £55,416

Arising from the above, residents requested clarification of some of the figures quoted above, in particular the administration charges relating to the beach huts. It was pointed out that the huts in Hamworthy Park were privately owned and only ground rent would be charged with no liability for repairs falling on the Council.

It was also felt that the figures for the Marine Activities Centre and the Café were too dis-similar for similar buildings

The Democratic Support Officer, Keith Gordon, undertook to seek further clarification.

The Open Spaces Manager, Matti Raudsepp, confirmed that Planning Obligation funds were split between Ward and Borough-wide funds

The Chairman, Hamside Residents’ Association expressed the view that;