BOROUGH OF POOLE
CANFORD HEATH EAST AND WEST, CREEKMOOR AND OAKDALE AREA COMMITTEE
29 OCTOBER 2003
HELD AT CANFORD HEATH UNITED REFORMED CHURCH, MITCHELL ROAD, CANFORD HEATH, POOLE
The meeting commenced at 7.00pm and finished at 8.50pm.
Present:
Councillor Allen (Chairman)
Councillors Adams, Mrs Butt, Burden, Curtis, Matthews, MrsMoore and Rampton
Members of the public present: 47
Also in attendance: Councillor Clements
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gillard and Montrose.
2. MINUTES
The Minutes of the last meeting of the Area Committee held on the 3rd September 2003, having been previously circulated, were taken as read and confirmed and signed by the Chairman.
3. PRESENTATION ON THE COUNCIL’S BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX 2004/5
The Chairman introduced the Leader of the Council, Councillor Leverett, to the meeting and invited him to give his presentation.
Councillor Leverett addressed he meeting explaining that this was part of the Council’s Budget Consultation to look for savings to reduce the level of Council Tax increase. He explained that the Council was looking at a four year, medium term, financial plan, which may need adjustment if assumptions made proved to be incorrect.
He addressed the Council’s priorities, which were to provide young people with the best possible start in life:
¨ Maintenance of a mixed economy
¨ Fostering of a pride in Poole
¨ Encouraging true community spirit
¨ Promotion of the health and well-being of all residents.
The Council planned to control its budgets by managing within budget, identifying savings to support new investments, reduce the level of Council Tax increases and planned to meet the possible budget shortfall of £3.6M in 2004/5.
The Council had identified savings of £1M from last year, which could be funded from savings as smaller contingency for managing within budget a reduction in fixed costs, for example, reduced National Non Domestic Rates on Leisure Centres. However the demand for services was increasing, for example, the disposal of waste and there was an increase in Landfill Tax.
The Leader felt that the monthly reports to the Cabinet on the Council’s financial monitoring was an improvement and helped with budget monitoring. The Council was also changing the way it produced Poole News to produce a saving of £10,000. In order to fund the rise in education costs within Poole an increase of 5.5% was required to make up the shortfall from previous years.
The Council had launched a fair funding campaign in which Governors, Headteachers and Councillors had lobbied the Government for more funding for education, but the expectations for 2004/5 were not good.
The Leader outlined that the majority of the Council’s funding came from Government allocation and the system of allocation was unfair with resources directed away from the south to assist Councils in the North and the Midlands, which meant that the Council Tax payers in the South faced a significant tax rise as a result. This situation was faced by many local authorities.
There were other financial issues facing the Council, such as employee costs, the employers contribution to employees’ pension and annual pay increases, together with new responsibilities, for example, licensing and unavoidable costs such as Landfill Tax rises meant that the Council had to make difficult choices. The Council faced a choice of increased Council Tax to protect good services, or to make cuts in services where demands and cost pressures increased faster than the Government’s share of grant support, or to increase income through fees and charges such as car parking.
The Leader outlined how the public was being consulted on such issues and explained that the Cabinet was considering budget options in December with the Council Tax being set for 2004/2005 at the Council meeting on 19th February 2004 when the results of consultation and Government funding announcement would be known.
The Chairman thanked the Leader for his presentation and invited questions.
A member of the public explained that pensions had only increased by 2.7% in 2003/4 and Council Tax had risen considerably more than this. He queried what the Council could do if people could not afford to pay the increase in Council Tax.
The Leader referred the member of public to the Revenues and Benefits section of the Council who would be able to help if people were genuinely unable to pay their Council Tax due to financial hardship. There were a number of benefits available.
A member of the public suggested that by not installing traffic lights on the Mountbatten Roundabout, this would save the Council money. The Leader responded that the money for traffic lights came from the Local Transport Plan which was Government funded rather than from local taxation.
A member of the public queried whether it was now time that Local Government employees had a different financial package and Pension Scheme rather than one based on contributions for final salary pensions.
The Leader explained that pensions for Local Government employees were negotiated locally and that this was an extremely difficult issue. The only way he felt this could be tackled was by new employees being offered a different scheme than a final salary pension, noting that there would be two types of terms and conditions of employment for employees working side by side and that this may take about 20 years before any benefit was seen to the Council.
A member of the public suggested that it was an “catch twenty-two situation” as all the time local Council worked to fund the shortfall from Central Government then Central Government did not fund Local Government as it should. The Leader responded explaining that the Council was making representations to Central Government about the level of funding it received.
Councillor Clements asked the Leader for clarification on the four year Budget Strategy explaining that the previous Administration had budgeted over three years, not one year.
A member of the public queried whether the money in land values with regard to land sales for Poole Regeneration etc was returned to the Council. Councillor Leverett responded explaining that Section 106 Agreements were entered into between Developers and the Council to ensure, for example that 40% of affordable housing was built on all developments of more than 15 units. The Chairman explained that the Asda site, which was worth £1.5M, 85 units of affordable housing had been obtained on that site.
A member of the public queried whether the Council was receiving extra funds from the Land Registry, but this was explained this was a Central Government Department.
A member of the public queried how the Council ensured it got best value for money from sub-contractors and the Leader responded that the officers inspected the work to ensure it was as good as it could be.
A member of the public queried whether the bridge was still a priority for Poole. The Leader responded that the bridge was definitely a priority with Government funding £14M and the bridge costing £28M and explaining that only 5% of traffic which crossed the bridge was actually using the Port in response to a query as to whether ferry companies were helping to fund the bridge.
4. DORSET SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP
The Chairman explained that this item would be deferred as the officer giving the presentation was unfortunately, ill.
5. BOURNEMOUTH, DORSET AND POOLE WASTE PLAN
Mr Peter White, Group Manager (Minerals and Development Control) of Dorset County Council, was invited to address the meeting. Mr White explained that the Waste Local Plan was a Plan for household, industry and commercial waste, proposals for how it should be disposed of and where new facilities for disposal should be placed. Apparently 73% of waste was still in landfill, which was scheduled to double by the year 2020 and it was realised that this could not be allowed to continue and things had to change.
There was to be a materials recycling/recovering facility, a thermal treatment plant at Nuffield site at Hatchpond in Poole in a form yet to be determined. The Draft Plan identified locations and criteria for the proposals. It was noted that it was important to deal with waste as close to the source as possible and a number of preferred locations had been identified in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance 10 and which fulfilled the proximity principle.
Nuffield Site at Hatchpond
A Traffic Impact Assessment was to be undertaken to see if a thermal treatment energy recovery plant could be located at Hatchpond.
Mr White concluded his presentation by explaining that more details could be found on the website below:- www.dorsetcc.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/2/First%20Deposit%20Waste%20Local%20Plan%20for%20Bournemouth%20and%20Poole.pdf and that the public’s views were required by the 7th of November 2003 together with any ideas on new locations. The revised Deposit Draft of the Local Plan would be on deposit next year.
In response to a question from Councillor Mrs Butt as to why the Hatchpond site at Poole was a “preferred” location, Mr White explained that as waste was continuously increasing sites in Poole had been identified to meet the needs of Poole’s Waste Strategy.
In response to a query as to why no sites were identified in Bournemouth, Mr White explained that Bournemouth actually took the whole of the clinical waste for the Plan area and there were no sites which met the criteria.
A member of the public queried whether the Nuffield site was safe for access for two to three hundred lorries, which could come from as far away as Bridport to Christchurch. Mr White explained that they had looked at the usage of the site by cars and there were three accesses into the Depot, but that a Traffic Impact Assessment Study would need to be carried out. He assured residents that no waste would be coming from Bridport for disposal at the Nuffield site.
A member of the public queried why the Nuffield site was even being considered and how the public could object properly. Mr White explained that he had forms with him for objections and suggested that the public concentrated on significant reasons as to why they were objecting from how it affects the property, amenity and the environment and as to any other alternative sites.
A resident queried what percentage of industrial waste was put into landfill and Mr White responded explaining that currently approximately 70%.
The Chairman and all Members of this Canford Heath West, East and Creekmoor and Oakdale Area Committee expressed their concerns that a site at Nuffield had been identified as a preferred location, but realised that Mr White was here to explain the process and how members of the public may object.
The Committee urged members of the public to object to the Plan and assured them that this Area Committee had registered strong objections to any site being identified within Poole.
The Chairman thanked Mr White for his presentation.
6. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
The Committee noted:-
(a) Abuse of Right Turn Ban Learoyd Road from Adastral Road
Councillor Mrs Moore informed the Committee of a number of residents’ concern about the abuse of the right turn ban into Learoyd Road from Adastral Road.
It was AGREED that this should be considered by the Traffic Panel at its meeting on the 7th December 2003.
ACTION TAKEN
The Traffic Panel’s recommendation is to be discussed at the 21stJanuary meeting of this Committee.
(b) Traffic Panel
The Area Committee noted the report of the Head of Transportation Services on the Traffic Panel in relation to Cabot Lane, Cavan Crescent, Beamish Road/Warburton Road, Waterloo Road/Tesco access, Fernside Road/Pound Lane.
7. LEISURE ISSUES
(a) Canford Heath Parkway
It was AGREED that the removal of the paving and wall etc from the former seating in the Canford Heath Parkway and its replacement with turf at an approximate cost of £1,465, be added to the list of proposed works to be undertaken by Leisure Services.
8. OPEN FORUM
(a) Longfleet Drive
A member of the public queried when the vegetation would be cut back at Longfleet Drive, how much this would cost and when. Mr John Lockwood of Leisure Services had been involved in this issue and, it was AGREED that this issue should be taken up and reported back.
(b) Creekmoor Lane
A member of the public queried whether it would be possible to increase the attendance of the Council’s traffic wardens by the shops after 6.00pm as there were a number of parking transgressions.
It was AGREED that this should be reviewed.
(c) Adastral Square
A member of the public commented on the hazard caused by the flagstones and the tarmac not being level. It was AGREED that the officers be requested to investigate.
ACTION TAKEN
This has already been investigated and defects attended to.
(d) Pound Lane
A member of the public queried if any action was being taken by the Council with regard to traffic caused by the new Tesco Express Store. Councillor Adams responded explaining that he thought the issue was safety for children going to school and that the Council had funding for a street crossing patrol person, but could not find anyone to undertake the job. The Traffic Panel was looking at the Pound Road situation and hoped to improve it.
A resident complained that the Tesco Lorries were regularly delivering at 5.00am in the morning. Councillor Adams responded that there was a condition imposed that Tesco could only deliver between 7.00am and 7.00pm. He asked that members of the public contact him immediately if these times were not adhered to in order that he could progress the matter.