BOROUGH OF POOLE
ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW GROUP
HELD ON 12TH MAY 2005
The meeting commenced at 7.00 p.m. and finished at 9.57 p.m.
Present:
CouncillorAdams (Chairman)
CouncillorsCurtis, Mrs Deas (substitute for Councillor Mrs Hives), Eades (substitute for Councillor Collyer), Gillard, Gregory (substitute for Councillor White), Mrs Lavender, Sorton, Trent and Wilson.
Also attending:
Councillor Miss Wilson
Members of the public present: 7
1.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Collyer, Mrs Hives and White.
2.MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 31st March 2005 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
3.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Eades declared a personal interest in M.8 as a person who had played on Branksome Recreation Ground, also as a player with Poole Cricket Club and as his son had played for Bourne Valley Youth Football Club.
Councillor Mrs Lavender declared a personal interest in M.8 by virtue of being on the Committee of the Friends of Branksome Recreation Ground.
4.LEISURE CENTRE PROVISION UPDATE
The Head of Leisure Services advised the Meeting that negotiations with SLM were nearing completion. The Contract documents were almost finished and the Capital Improvements had now been clarified. A Schedule of Risk would be reported to Members in the near future together with Performance Indicators which had been developed. Reporting mechanisms including the setting up of a Board had also been devised.
Consultations were still taking place with Staff and Unison on staffing issues under TUPE and he had also attended meetings of the Rossmore and Ashdown User Groups to give an update on the process to date.
He pointed out that Condition Surveys had taken some time to complete and this work was nearing completion and it was hoped to complete the process by June.
A Member stated that there were concerns at the changes in relationships at one of the Joint Use Centres due to broadening of the range of facilities on the Campus and he thought this might be affected further when SLM came on board. There was a hope that this matter would be resolved.
The Head of Leisure Services responded by stating that there would still be an expectation that User Groups would remain in existence and it was hoped that a new Group would need to be set up in respect of the Dolphin Pool and that there was a need to work together to sort these issues out in the longer term.
The Portfolio Holder felt that there might be a need to look at these issues carefully and it might be that additional arrangements would need to be put in place for operational issues.
AGREED that the update Report be noted.
For:Unanimous
5.GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
The Head of Leisure Services submitted a report to determine the completion date of the Grounds Maintenance Contracts. As reported previously the overall performance of the Contract had been discussed on 31st March 2005 including the increase in public satisfaction of the care of open spaces from 80% in 2003/4 to 83% in 2004/5. The Report had also outlined the issues which needed to be resolved in advance of re-tendering e.g. two tier workforce and the possible financial implications, which the Council must address in its Financial Plan. Consultation was taking place with the workforce and Unison and he pointed out that Continental Landscapes and Unison had an agreement to address the two tier workforce situation so as to equalise pay grades. Unison’s concerns were being addressed and these details could be looked at during this process.
He felt that in order to ensure that the Council receive a maximum benefit from future Grounds Maintenance Contracts that sufficient time and resources would need to be invested in the tendering process. The existing Grounds Maintenance Contracts contained Clauses which extended the contracts up until 31st December 2007 if the Council desired.
Finally the Head of Leisure Services concluded that:-
- The existing contracts had shown an improvement in performance.
- The Council would need to consider the likely cost increase of any re-tendering exercise in its financial plan.
- Further works were necessary in order to ensure that the Council had sufficient performance information to set service standards for future contracts.
- Leisure Services was currently engaged in a number of important projects and adding re-tendering of the Grounds Maintenance contracts to this workload might result in the process not receiving the full attention that it deserved.
- Following consultation with Internal Audit an extension was permissible under the terms and conditions of the Contract.
However a Member stated that there was some concern with regard to the excellent works which had been undertaken at Elderly Persons Dwellings (EPDs) and Sheltered Housing accommodation and that it was hoped that consultation would take place between Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (PHP) and Housing Consultative Panel (HCP) to work through any concerns which existed with regard to the standard of service and that Tenant Representatives would be involved.
AGREED that this Overview Group recommends to Cabinet that the Head of Leisure Services be instructed to arrange an extension of the contracts until 31st December 2007.
For:Unanimous
6.PLANNING OBLIGATIONS FUND (RECREATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS) SUB-GROUP
The Head of Leisure Services reported that various recommendations had come forward from the Planning Obligations Fund (Recreational Contributions) Sub-Group meeting on 19th April 2005 and his Report detailed the individual schemes which had been considered in respect of:-
- Tatnam Farm – spectator stand
- Footpath provision across Hatchards Field
- Extension of lighting on the promenade
- Shapwick Road development
- Sandbanks play area/landscaping
- Amendments to the delegated decision making process
The Portfolio Holder stated that, as highlighted by a member of the Group, the wording in the Minutes of the Planning Obligations Fund (Recreational Contributions) Sub-Group needed to be clarified (page 2 final paragraph) to read:
“And that it should not seen as an asset for the Football Club. Legal and Democratic Services should take all steps to ensure that there was a revertible Lease drawn up.”
He also felt that it was important to include in the Contract of Use a clause clarifying the fact that there would be no disruption to residents in respect of parking in the vicinity including the access road.
He also drew attention to the fact that the Group was being asked to amend the delegated decision making process for Planning Obligations Fund Allocations so that for contributions less than £50,000 the Sub-Group considerations would be approved by the Head of Leisure Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder. This recommendation had been unanimously supported by the Sub-Group but he wished Members to be aware that this would in future be an Officer delegation. Obviously there would be safeguards and if a problem arose during this process any decision would be referred to Cabinet for consideration.
AGREED that this Group recommends approval by the Portfolio Holder of the following:-
(i)Tatnam Farm (Oakdale South Road Middle School) spectator stand – the allocation of up to £40,000 from the Planning Obligations Fund (major build facilities) to deliver this new facility;
(ii)Footpath provision across Hatchards Field –
(a)the allocation of developer contributions from 2A Arne Avenue (£6,000) to the scheme; and
(b)the allocation of the remaining £16,000 from the Planning Obligations Fund (Open Spaces) for Newtown Ward;
(iii)Extension of lighting on the promenade (Phase 11) – allocate £60,000 from the Planning Obligations Fund (beaches);
(iv)Shapwick Road development – support the principle of negotiating specific Section 106 Agreements:-
(a)for a contribution to the provision of new outdoor changing facilities at Carter Community Sports College; and
(b)to support improvements to open spaces in Lower Hamworthy;
(v)Sandbanks play area/landscaping –
(a)support the proposal for improved childrens play facilities at Sandbanks; and
(b)allocate up to £10,000 for landscape design and feasibility work, with a view to bringing a more detailed proposal back to the Sub-Group for further consideration in due course;
(vi)Amend the delegated decision making process for Planning Obligation funding allocation so that:
- in line with existing financial Standing Orders, for contributions less than £50,000 the Sub-Group considerations be approved by the Head of Leisure Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder Environmental including Leisure and Recreation;
- for contributions more than £50,000 the Sub-Group considerations be approved by Cabinet/Portfolio Holder via The Environment Overview Group.
For:Unanimous
7.PETITION ON INTRUSIVE EXTERIOR LIGHTING AT THE ARTS INSTITUTE, TALBOT VILLAGE
The Chairman reported that at the Council meeting on 17th February 2005 the following petition had been submitted by residents of Charlotte Close, Gallop Way and McWilliam Close which had been referred to this Overview Group for consideration:-
“Residents are highlighting their objection to the intrusive exterior lighting on the new Arts Institute Building at Talbot Village, Poole. Residents request that the Council help by having the Arts Institute remove the intrusive nature of the exterior lighting from their new building.”
The Joint Acting Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services reported that in the absence of legislation, Officers from Environmental and Consumer Protection Services had intervened to support the complainant in this matter by informally discussing the issue with the Arts Institute. The outcome of these discussions was that the lights were primarily used for security and that the Institute would aim to reduce their impact on nearby residents. An initial assessment had suggested that even when light pollution fell within the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that the light in this case would not meet the criteria of statutory nuisance. This assessment would be reviewed when appropriate guidance on the subject was issued and the new legislation contained the new Cleaner Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 was implemented. He also stated that the Institute would look into switching the lights off at 11.00p.m. or an appropriate time as long as security considerations were not compromised.
AGREED that
(i)the report by the Joint Acting Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services be noted;
(ii)this Overview Group sympathises with the residents and recommends to Cabinet that Officers be instructed to seek an amicable resolution to reduce the light intensity.
For:Unanimous
8.MOTIONS
The following Motions were referred to the Overview Group for consideration:-
(a)Play area, Arne Avenue
“With Poole Council’s declaration, in the latest edition of Poole News, of its “commitment to giving the young people the best possible start in life” and that “supporting young people” is one of Poole’s top five priorities, we therefore call upon this Council to support the need and the request from young people for a play area within the Arne Avenue Youth Centre and for it to be funded by the Poole Council’s Capital Fund 2005/6”.
Signed: Councillors Miss Wilson, Brooke, Clements, Eades, Mrs James, Mrs Moore, Plummer, Trent and Wilson
The Proposer of the Motion called on the Group to support the youth and their previous request for a play facility adjoining the Centre. She stated that a petition had been presented to Council signed by many of the youth in the Arne Avenue/Bourne Estate area pledging that not only did they need this facility but they would also respect and look after it. A lot of this work had been achieved by what some might call the more challenging side of the Community, certainly the hard to reach. It would be really significant to show that “positive action” was rewarded by “positive results”.
There had recently been a sale of land within the Ward at Mannings Heath which had resulted in a “windfall” of money to the capital receipt and hoped that this would be ploughed back into the community. She was aware and appreciative of the work Peter Read was trying to achieve in Alderney and that he had supported the Scheme. However, there was much talk about the redevelopment of the “zig-zag” area but that nothing had been agreed to date. Even if it did move forward it would still be a considerable time before plans were agreed and for money to be available in the Planning Obligations fund for Alderney.
She called on the Council to support the youth and give them the best chance at the start of their lives.
A Ward Member stated that this Scheme had been a top priority for many years and he really felt that there ought to be finance available to develop a scheme otherwise this group of teenagers would grow up and be passed by. Many children in the area had never seen things happening and funds should be allocated immediately. There was a need to develop a site at the Youth Cub where there was enough room for a play area.
The Head of Leisure Services reported that the need for a play area in Arne Avenue was well documented and the challenge had been where to site the facility. Recently discussions had taken place and the Youth Centre had been identified as a possibility but it was likely to cost in the region of £80,000 to £100,000 for a proper scheme. Funding could be provided through:-
- Funds derived from the development for residential purposes of land behind the zig-zags - £50,000;
- A contribution from the Youth Centre Board - £10,000;
- Planning Obligations (Recreational Contributions) for the Alderney Ward - £20,000.
He stated that the above Proposal would require that all available funds at this time for Alderney Equipped Childrens Play were allocated to this project.
The Portfolio Holder stated that, unfortunately the Capital Fund for 2005/6 had already been approved and whilst the validity of the Scheme had been brought to this Group it was felt that the Scheme should be looked at by the Planning Obligations Working Group for a feasibility study to be undertaken. He supported the facility for young children notwithstanding the fact that it could not be funded via the Capital Fund for 2005/6. He wished to work with Ward Councillors to achieve a scheme in the near future.
The following points were raised by Members:-
- This was the highest priority and the Council should do all it could to achieve a scheme;
- The Yarrow Road “windfall” could be used to fund this scheme;
- Members owed it to the children to provide an Environment to play in and that the Officers should be asked to look at drawing up proposals.
AGREED that the above Motion be supported in principle and that Cabinet be recommended to instruct officers to look at sources of funding as a priority.
For:Unanimous
(b)Pavilion at Branksome Recreation Ground
“This Council recognises the poor state of the Pavilion at Branksome Recreation Ground. This Council believes that this building is past its useful life and does not enhance the community’s facilities of the people of Branksome or the wider population of Poole.
This Council further believes that detailed investigation should be undertaken to provide a new facility for the residents of Branksome to include replacement changing facilities for sportsmen and women that pay substantial sums to the Council to use the sub-standard pitches at Branksome Recreation Ground and a new Community Centre for use by the local residents for such events as mother and baby meetings, as a meeting point for Community Groups (including the Friends of Branksome Recreation Ground) and as a social venue particularly for older members of the community.”
Signed: Councillors Eades, Brooke, Clements, Plummer and Trent.
The Proposer of the Motion stated that Branksome Recreation Ground was failing and had been deteriorating over the years. The outfield was under water a lot of the time and this had resulted in the Cricket Club moving to Wallisdown after being at the site for over 40 years. The Meeting was also advised that Branksome United Youth Football Club now trained at St. Aldhelms School and of the pitches played at Canford Arena due to the condition.
He also drew attention to the fact that The Pavilion was also deteriorating. The facilities and showers were poor and this was another factor which caused the Cricket Club to move. He felt that the Council’s Strategies should include provision for a new Pavilion and he asked the Group to support the Motion as it was the right thing to do for people who lived in the area. He felt that this Scheme could be delivered through various funding sources such as Lottery Funding, Planning Obligations Funding and possibly through a Grant from the Talbot Village Trust which might be available. He also drew attention to the fact that the Bourne Valley Community Centre in Herbert Avenue was also failing and it might be possible to sell that site for re-development which would help finance new facilities at Branksome Recreation Ground.