BOROUGH OF POOLE

HAMWORTHY EAST AND WEST AND POOLE TOWN AREA COMMITTEE

22 SEPTEMBER 2010

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

The Meeting commenced at 7pm and concluded at 8:40pm

Members of the Committee Present:

Councillor Wilkins (Chairman)

Councillors Bulteel, Chandler, Mrs Evans, Gregory and White

Members of the public in attendance: 26

The Chairman advised that following the recent sad death of Councillor Dr Brian Leverett, a minute’s silence would be held prior to the commencement of the Meeting.

All present stood in silent tribute to the late Councillor Dr Brian Leverett, Leader of the Council and Ward Member for Poole Town, who had died suddenly on 17th September 2010.

In tribute, Mr Winwood gave thanks to the friendship of Dr Leverett and wished to record his appreciation on behalf of everyone present for the years of dedicated service that he had provided.

Councillor Bulteel, Mayor of Poole, informed those present that a Book of Condolence had been opened and was available at the Civic Centre, after which it would be presented to Dr Leverett’s family.

HEWPT9.10PRESENTATION

A presentation of a Poole Community Champion’s Blue Award was made by Councillor Bulteel, Mayor of Poole, to Mr Ken Melhuish in recognition of his community work as a volunteer at the Community Centre and as an active member of the Turlin Moor Action Group.

HEWPT10.10APOLOGIES

All Members of the Committee were present.

HEWPT11.10DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest received.

HEWPT12.10MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the last Meeting of the Hamworthy East and West and Poole Town Area Committee held on 2 June 2010, having been previously circulated, be taken as read and confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

HEWPT13.10PRESENTATIONS

Nigel Jacobs, Nicholas Perrins and Bill Gordon, Planning and Regeneration Services, gave short presentations on the Local Development Framework Consultations, which were taking place between 9th August and 8th October 2010, seeking views on the latest stages of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) and Delivering Poole’s Infrastructure DPD.

The Meeting was advised by Nigel Jacobs that the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD consisted of three separate consultation documents relating to:

  • Consultation on Issues and Options and Preferred Approach for Development Management Policies;
  • Consultation on Preferred Options for Additional Sites; and
  • Consultation on Proposed and Revised Policy Areas.

The purpose of the DPD was to

(i)develop a suite of Development Management Policies that would be used, in conjunction with the adopted Core Strategy Policies, to manage, assess and determine future proposals for development in Poole and;

(ii) to identify sites for allocation to meet Poole’s housing, employment and other needs identified in the Poole Core Strategy.

The Consultation on Preferred Options for additional sites dealt with a number of existing undeveloped sites, allocated in the Poole Local Plan First Alteration, that would be “rolled forward” following a review of “saved” Local Plan Policies.

Following the Consultation period and taking account of the views and comments received, Development Management Policies and detailed policies for sites would be developed and included in a pre-submission document. It was anticipated that this Document would be the subject of further public consultation in Spring 2011.

Turning to the Infrastructure DPD, it was stated that the purpose of this was to:

  • Identify the costs, funding streams and mechanisms to provide the infrastructure required to deliver Poole’s housing and employment needs;
  • Establish standard infrastructure charges for development based on delivering identified needs; and
  • To create a fair, transparent and accountable system for Developer Contributions and overall infrastructure delivery.

There were a number of preferred options, which were being consulted on and these were:

  • Defining the scope
  • Planning Obligations/Standard Charges
  • The Infrastructure Delivery Plan
  • The Delivery Framework
  • Development Viability

The Meeting was advised that residents could respond on-line, in writing or by email and hard copies of the documents were available to view at the Planning Reception in the Civic Centre and at all Poole Libraries.

The following comments were made at the Meeting:

  • A member of the public asked two questions relating to currently outstanding development proposals, enquiring if a Developer could take action now in order to pre-empt any policy changes that were likely to be detrimental?

Nigel Jacobs stated that the Council had a duty to consider the Planning Applications based on policies currently in place. Reference was made to the cost of the provision of infrastructure being covered by Section 106 e.g. Affordable Housing, Open Space and Heathland Impact. Mr Jacobs also explained that in future there would be a wider range of considerations but that the amount of contribution will not change.

  • The member of public stated that her question had not been answered and referred to specific sites at the former Poole Power Station and sought clarification on what infrastructure a Developer was required to provide and whether these could be avoided by making an application at this point?

Mr Jacobs explained that the Local Plan currently in place required Developers to conform with Public Realm requirements i.e. the provision of pavements, street furniture, open space etc and that in future the Council can take monetary payment.

  • A member of the public referred to the pro vision for infrastructure e.g., sewers that were inadequate and asked how matters of this type are dealt with?

Mr Jacobs responded stating that a developer has a responsibility to discuss utilities with the appropriate provider, e.g., Wessex Water Authority, Bournemouth and West Hants Water Company, payments were then made directly to the appropriate Authority.

  • A member of the public asked if the Council had powers to insist on the inclusion of such infrastructure?

Mr Jacobs responded, stating “yes, as a condition of the Planning consent”.

  • A member of the public referred to the Co-operative Store site and highlighted an anomaly that had been identified by a member of the public at a previous meeting when a Planning Application was re-submitted that made no mention to changes in the proposed road structure.
  • Another member of the public referred to the redevelopment site of the former Liberal Hall and enquired as to proposals for changing road layouts or new roads within the development site to cater for the additional volume of traffic?

Mr Gordon responded that the proposals, which he had seen, required that there be no road layout change or new road.

HEWPT14.10INFORMATION ITEM – LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO DOLPHIN SWIMMING POOLE CONCOURSE/SELDOWN PARK

Mr M Whitchurch, Greenspace Development Officer, referred to a handout giving a pictorial impression and brief narrative relating to proposals for the new “Seldown Park”. The key elements of the proposals were highlighted in that the scheme provided an improvement to the link between Poole Park and the entrance towards the Town Centre. The Scheme provided for large grassed area with a wide footpath and low-level walls. The area would be terraced and between 30-35 trees were to be planted, with existing trees being retained. There was to be a circular focal point with ramps and steps with planted beds. Flowers were being provided by Chestnut Nursery that were intended to provide a local interest.

Funding for this scheme was from the Section 106 Contributions ring fenced to the Poole Town Ward. Consultations had taken place, including discussions with the local Ward Members.

The timetable for the works were that during the winter the Scheme would be laid out, planting would take place in late March 2011 in time for next Summer.

A number of comments were made by members of the public relating to the type of trees, the provision being made for two crosses that were formerly situated on that site and the solutions being proposed to deal with the current anti-social behaviour and the gathering of large numbers of young people in that area. Mr Whitchurch replied that all such matters had been considered and provisions made to deal with each of the issues raised.

HEWPT15.10 POOLE QUARTER PARKING CONTROLS

Steve Dean, Principal Engineer, presented a report that considered the proposed parking controls in Poole Quarter. The need to make Traffic Orders was emphasised and it was explained that, as representations received included two objections, it was therefore necessary to carry out the current process. It was highlighted that there was support received from the Sterte residents, who were in favour of the restrictions being extended. It was further explained that there was pay and display parking nearby providing alternative provisions for local usage.

RESOLVED that the Traffic Orders be made for parking controls in Poole Quarter, as advertised.

HEWPT16.10TRAFFIC PANEL

Steve Dean, Principal Engineer, referred to a Traffic Panel Meeting held on 16 June 2010 at which items relating to the Area Committee were discussed. It was reported that this Area Committee had approximately £1,200 unallocated in its budget for this Financial Year. It was recommended that changes in Maple Road and Wimborne Road be approved for implementation in the current year’s programme.

It was further emphasised that, due to the long lead time a decision requiring Traffic Orders, a decision was needed imminently.

RESOLVED that this Area Committee approve for implementation the proposed changes in Maple Road – to relocate parking bays into Charles Road and Wimborne Road – parking arrangements at the new Emergency Services building.

HEWPT17.10OPEN FORUM

(a) Response to a question raised by Mr Winwood regarding the advance warning sign for Poole Town Bridge

Steve Dean, Principal Engineer explained that there was no guarantee that the signs will ever work and that this response was the same as in the previous Meetings at which the same question was asked.

(b) Response to a question raised by Mr Chick regarding the junction at Lake Avenue, Lulworth Avenue and Lake Road enquiring if ‘Give-Way’ signs can be altered to ‘Halt’ signs

Steve Dean, Principal Engineer, explained that this was not possible by reason of the criteria not being met with regard to the installation of a ‘Stop’ sign. The criteria required that poor visibility exist in order that ‘Stop’ signs be installed, referring to the problem being one of driver behaviour rather than road layout.

(c) Response to a question raised by Mr Chick regarding the junction at Blandford Road/Ashmore Avenue and the installation of a yellow box

Steve Dean, Principal Engineer, confirmed that he would raise the matter at the next Traffic Panel Meeting.

(d) Response to written question submitted by Mr Steer: “Could our Councillors confirm that although Poole Park is a Registered Park and Garden, the Borough of Poole Planning Policies covering Open Spaces WILL and ARE allowing a section of this land to be considered for:- (i) the building of Affordable Housing on this registered Park and Garden land; (ii) the disposal of this Council owned registered Park and Garden Land for financial return?

A written response, prepared by Clive Smith, Head of Leisure Services, had been circulated prior to the Meeting. Mr Steer was asked if he was satisfied with the response given? Mr Steer indicated that he was not assured by the response and referred to the Application for Town and Village Green status to provide protection to Poole Park. Councillors Gregory and Chandler sought to provide explanations as to the specific circumstances concerning issues referred to in Mr Steer’s original question. Nigel Jacobs, Planning and Regeneration Services, offered a further explanation as to the history of the particular site location.

(e) Response to written question submitted by Mr Howard referring to two letters that were recently distributed to Residents (one from Town Ward Councillors and the second from Councillor Leverett) referring to rumours concerning development at Baiter. The letters assured residents that development could never take place as the area which was protected by the Public Open Spaces Policies of the Poole Local Plan. If that statement is correct, can it be explained why certain Councillors, together with the Head of Leisure Services supported the Application to develop an enclosed football stadium on 18% of Branksome Recreation Ground?

Alan Leeson, Democratic Support Officer, explained that the response had been compiled by Councillor Leverett prior to his sad and untimely death and that this had been circulated prior to the Meeting. The response clarified the points that only one letter, signed by the three Poole Town Ward Councillors had been circulated in response to unfounded rumours and that although Branksome

Councillor Gregory informed the Meeting that he was the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee and explained the specific issues related to Branksome Recreation Ground was outside the scope of Hamworthy East and West and Poole Town Area Committee and also the principles placed upon the Council in its planning and other roles. Mr Howard remained unsatisfied with the original response and also the clarification and referred to the application for Town or Village Green status, a matter that was being dealt with by way of a Public Inquiry.

(f) Response to question asked by Mrs Bullock – “We are asking where we (the Community of Hamworthy) stands with regard to Tuckers Field?”

Mrs Bullock was asked if she was satisfied with the written response that had been circulated prior to the Meeting by Alan Jones, Head of Asset Management and Property Services in which he explained the requirement to consult with the Secretary of State prior to 2014 regarding a change of use, to which Mrs Bullock responded, “Not really”. It was explained that, given the national pressure on future educational land requirements, any application to the Government at the present time, was likely to fail to succeed. Mrs Bullock reported that the security fence was broken and that children were using the area. Councillor White explained that he was prepared to pursue the matter. Mr Winwood explained that he had details relating to a previously submitted Planning Application regarding the site and agreed to provide copies.

(g)Response to written question submitted by Mr Constance – Glen Neptune Consultants had submitted a Planning Application to develop West Quay Road (between the Bridges) site. It is a massive, high-rise, high density development, which completely ignores Borough of Poole Council guidance in regard to density, height of buildings along the waterfront and open space proportions. The Core Strategy states that this site must “form an extension to Poole Quay in terms of its function and character”. Again, the Developers have chosen to ignore the importance of blending the new with the historic Quay and Old Town. This site is one of up to ten “Regeneration” development sites that will be constructed over the next few years. What happens here will set the pattern for future site planning applications. Residents have expressed their concern in the press and within the formal planning process. The “Regeneration of Poole” will have a major impact on the lives of Hamworthy and Old Town residents. Will the Committee oppose this matter of overdevelopment and demand a co-ordinated design approach to the “Regeneration Sites”? This is the largest ever rebuilding programme in Poole and will have an everlasting impact on the future of Poole.

Alan Leeson, Democratic Support Officer, explained that advice had been provided that the Area Committee was not the appropriate forum to discuss an active planning matter and highlighted the various ways in which representations on active planning applications may be lodged. A general discussion ensued regarding representations made to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services who it was reported, had had meetings with representatives of the local Community in which he explained the role of Councillors and his attempts at encouraging a more open dialogue between interested community groups and developers on issues prior to the formal receipt of a Planning Application. Councillor Gregory and Councillor White referred to new formal proposals to encourage developers to engage with the Community and recognised the genuine concerns expressed, explaining that it was not the responsibility of Councillors but of individual developers to consult prior to submitting a planning appication. References were made to open meetings held previously with developers and the recent proposals relating to improving local engagement and at the role of Councillors not serving on the Planning Committee who deal with issues across the whole Borough and not on a Ward only basis.

CHAIRMAN

1