BOROUGH OF POOLE

HAMWORTHY EAST AND WEST AND POOLE TOWN AREA COMMITTEE

5 SEPTEMBER 2007

HELD AT ST JAMES’ CHURCH HALL, CHURCH STREET, POOLE

The Meeting commenced at 7pm and finished at 8:32pm

Members of the Committee present:

Councillor Bulteel (Chairman)

Councillors Chandler, Mrs Evans, Gregory, Leverett, White and Wilkins

Members of the public in attendance: approximately 75

HEW13.07APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were no apologies for absence.

HEW14.07DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

HEW15.07MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the last Meeting of the Area Committee held on 20 June 2007, having been previously circulated, be taken as read and confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

HEW16.07MATTERS ARISING

There were no matters arising.

HEW17.07PRESENTATION FROM MR ADRIAN CROOK, HEAD OF FIRE SERVICES FOR POOLE: FIRE HAMWORTHY CO-OPERATIVE SUPERMARKET 1 SEPTEMBER 2007

The Chairman introduced Mr Adrian Crook, Head of Service, Poole, Dorset Fire and Rescue Service to the Meeting and thanked him for his attendance. Mr Crook updated the Meeting on the fire which had occurred at the Co-operative Supermarket, Hamworthy on 1 September 2007, explaining that the Fire Brigade had been alerted to the incident by a public call at approximately 5:20am on 1 September 2007. Within 3 minutes of that call, 3 Poole and Hamworthy Fire Engines were in attendance and from 6am, 8 appliances were in attendance.

At the height of the blaze there were 12 fire fighting appliances and hydraulic performance platforms and specialised vehicles, together with 85 personnel engaged in extinguishing the fire. Fortunately, no one had been hurt in the incident and the Fire Brigade believe that the fire was started deliberately by the setting alight of some cardboard and plastic in the loading bay of the Supermarket. The flames had then travelled up to the roof space, which was not divided, and then across the roof. The Fire Brigade had been advised that to rebuild the Supermarket the Co-operative Society was estimating approximately £4.5Million.

In response to a question from a member of the public, Mr Crook explained that there were a number of problems with fires being deliberately started in the Dorset area, particularly in Bridport.

The Meeting thanked Mr Crook for his attendance.

HEW18.07REVIEW OF POLLING PLACES, POLLING DISTRICTS AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS

With the consent of the Meeting the Chairman reordered the Agenda.

The Chairman invited Mr Paul Morris, Returning Officer and Registration Services Manager for the Borough of Poole to address the Meeting.

Mr Morris explained that the Council was obliged to undertake a Review of its Polling Places, Polling Districts and Access Arrangements under the Electoral Administration Act 2006. Such a Review had to take place every four years. He reminded the Meeting that the Borough’s 16 Ward Boundaries could not be changed by such a review and the process for the Review was to consult Ward Councillors, interested Groups, Political Parties, Disability Access Groups and to report the Review’s findings to Council for decision. To this end, a cross Party Working Party of Elected Members had been established and each Area Committee was being consulted.

Mr Morris drew the Meeting’s attention to a form placed on the seats of members of the public which they could return, expressing their views on polling areas. This form was also available on the Borough of Poole’s website. All views were to be considered and collated for a decision to be made by Council on 18 December 2007 for any new Polling Districts to be effective from 1 January 2008.

Alan Pickering, of Electoral Services, explained one of the rationales used to assess whether Polling areas need to be changed, using as an example, Hamworthy West Ward, was the comparison of the number of properties and electors within a Polling area compared with the Borough average. The Hamworthy Wards and the Poole Old Town Ward had an increase in the number of eligible electors due to the Regeneration Scheme and building of new properties which may lead to an imbalance in the number of electors attending Polling Stations. This Review would enable such issues to be addressed.

As part of the Disability Discrimination Act, last year the Borough of Poole had commissioned a survey to ensure that all of its Polling Stations were 100% compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act. Any proposed changes would also be subject to such scrutiny.

The Chairman, on behalf of the Meeting, thanked Mr Morris and Mr Pickering for their Presentation and urged any interested members of the public to make representations.

HEW19.07TRANSPORTATION MATTERS: BURNGATE ROAD

Mr Tite, of Transportation Services, introduced the Report on Burngate Road, proposed waiting restrictions. He explained that the proposed waiting restrictions in Burngate Road had been advertised between 22 February and 22 March 2007. The last Meeting of the Committee had considered the objections received and deferred a decision to allow the situation to be monitored.

Letters of representation had been copied to all Members of the Area Committee and could be summarised as follows:

  • Two residents had written to suggest the yellow lines would be more appropriate on the opposite side of the road behind the bend (in front of the maisonettes rather than alongside No.12. The residents had no objections to the lines running up to and around the bend.
  • A resident had objected on the basis that roads were very quiet and parking did not create problems. He had suggested a ‘resident only’ parking sign or the removal of the path on the southern side of the road.
  • A resident had written to support the proposals but asked that residents be given permits to allow their visitors to park in the road. A resident had written to point out that the Council transport was not able to access the road to pick up or drop off elderly people at the end of the road and expressed concern that emergency vehicles would also not be able to gain access and that proposals were forced to walk in the road when cars parked on the footway.
  • A telephone call had also been received from a resident of the road who was unable to use a taxi because it was unable to get to her house.

Burngate Road was nominally 6.3 metres wide and the Council would not normally allow parking on both sides of a road narrower than 7.3 metres. Although there was a footway on both sides of the road, it was unjustifiably expensive to widen carriageways and the Council had no budget to provide additional parking spaces in residential roads. The Refuse Collection Service needed to access the road to collect refuse, recycling and green waste and problems had been reported which meant that green waste collections could not be made sometimes during the afternoons and evenings.

The restrictions had been introduced in response to complaints that vehicles parked on both sides of the road preventing access for larger vehicles. The restrictions would not prevent parking in the road but would merely restrict it to one side.

The restrictions had been proposed on the northern side of the road to protect the inside of the bend and to protect the private accesses on that side of the road. Imposing lines on this side of the road maximised the number of general parking spaces left in the road. The lines could not be swapped beyond the bend without re-advertising and this would not necessarily overcome the objections.

Two residents present at the Meeting commented that much of the problem was caused by residents from Blandford Road using Burngate Road for parking purposes. It was queried why it could not be made resident parking only?

Mr Tite explained that residents parking for one street only was not practical, the costs would be prohibitive and a number of residents may object to buying a parking permit to park on the road which may only result in displacing parking to other streets around the area. He pointed out that vehicles parking in the road, if not causing an obstruction, were not parked illegally.

Members had every sympathy that there were more cars than spaces and suggested that the proposals should be trialled and if there were real problems the issue could be reviewed.

A Member of the public commented that the problem was caused as there was no enforcement of parking regulations.

It was moved, seconded and RESOLVED that the Order be confirmed as shown on Drawing HT2000-12A.

HEW20.07TRAFFIC PANEL AND TRAFFIC PROGRAMME 2007/2008: REPORT OF THE HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Mr Tite introduced the Report, explaining that the Traffic Panel had met on 16 May 2007 and discussed the following items relating to this Area Committee:

  • Blandford Road – Bus Stop clearway at Shapwick Road
  • New Quay Road – Review of waiting and loading restrictions
  • Rigler Road – Review of waiting restrictions
  • Alverton Avenue – Request for removal of parking bay
  • Seldown Lane, Seldown Road – request for additional parking bays

With regard to Alverton Avenue and the request for the removal of a parking bay, it was noted that the Panel had recommended no action as the junction and turning areas were already protected by existing restrictions and if was not Council Policy to protect private accesses. A Member queried the estimated cost of a £1,000 for the removal of a bay. It was explained that should a parking bay be removed, it was not merely a matter of removing the road markings, it had to be advertised under Highway Regulations and this added to the cost. It was noted that no action was to be taken.

The Committee was asked to consider a Review of waiting and loading restrictions at New Quay Road for inclusion in the Committee’s Traffic Programme for this year. The Committee was also asked to include the request for additional parking at Seldown Lane, Seldown Road within its Programme for this year.

RESOLVED that

(i)the proposals to advertise new parking bays as shown on Drawing HT200/030, at an estimated cost of £1,000 be supported; and

(ii)the imposition of no waiting and no loading in New Quay Road, as shown on Drawing HT200/029, at an approximate cost of £1,000, be approved for inclusion in the Committee’s Programme.

HEW21.07SURPLUS LAND AT FRESHWATER DRIVE: REPORT OF THE HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Mr Tite introduced his Report, explaining that he was seeking the Area Committee’s views on a request that an area of Highway Verge at the junction of Freshwater Drive and Carisbrooke Crescent be declared surplus to highway requirements. The Committee noted that the verge was maintained as a highway verge. Although public highway, the freehold of the land under the roads, footways and verges had never been conveyed to the Council and was retained by the original estate developer. There was no necessity for this to have happened as powers within the Highways Act 1980 give the Highway Authority sufficient powers to control, regulate and protect the Highway.

Despite the presence of an area of open space and a play area on the opposite side of the road, the land at the junction of Freshwater Drive and Carisbrooke Crescent was being used as an informal gathering point for local children in the evenings and at weekends which was creating a disturbance to the residents of the adjacent property, 45 Freshwater Drive.

The resident of 45 Freshwater Drive had made contact with the freehold owner who had agreed to selling the land if a Stopping Up Order could be obtained.

The Meeting noted that the Transportation Advisory Group was to consider this application at a future meeting but sought the Area Committee’s views.

Mr Tite drew the Committee’s attention to the highway implications, explaining that the site had been checked against new guidelines and the required visibility could be secured within the areas of footway in both Freshwater Drive and Carisbrooke Crescent, meaning that the area of highway verge at the junction of Freshwater Drive and Carisbrooke Crescent, shown shaded on the Plan attached to the Report, No.HT112/008, was unnecessary. The Area Committee was advised that the Council would not be able to restrict the use of the land once the highway rights had been removed and total control would revert to the Owner. If the applicant wished to acquire the land for the purposes of development an application would have to be made under the Town and Country Planning Act to have the area stopped up as part of the Planning Application and such applications were considered by the Secretary of State.

Should the Transportation Advisory Group recommend that the land was no longer required for highway purposes, a legal notice would need to be placed on site and in the press to advertise the intention to “stop up” the piece of land. Any objections to the proposals would be considered by the Magistrates Court.

A Member queried the width of the shaded area on the Plan and was advised it was up to 5.9 metres.

A Member queried whether any charge could be made and Mr Tite advised that the Council could not profit from the transaction, only cover its costs. The Member expressed concern that this could be setting a precedent and was to refer this issue to the Head of Legal Services for investigation as there were a number of other such areas within the Borough.

Mr Tite advised that the Area Committee was being asked for is view solely on highway issues.

Councillor White explained that he would be abstaining as he was the Portfolio Holder for Transportation and would be responsible for making the decision following Transportation Advisory Group consideration.

RESOLVED that the Transportation Advisory Group be advised that this Area Committee has no objection to the area of land shown shaded on Drawing HT112/008 being declared surplus to highway requirements.

Note: Councillor White abstained from voting.

HEW22.07OPEN FORUM

A revised Report was circulated at the Meeting and the responses to questions submitted by residents detailed at Agenda item 6 of the Agenda were noted.

The following answer was given at the Meeting.

(a) Minutes of the last Committee

The Democratic Services Manager apologised for the fact that the Minutes of the last Meeting were not available on the Web and explained this had been rectified. She explained that it was financially prohibitive to circulate Minutes of the Meeting in a separate despatch from the Agendas for the next Meeting as this always included the Minutes of the last Meeting.

(b)Issues raised at the Meeting for Future Agenda

Grounds Maintenance Contract

A Member advised that Council was currently considering representations from a number of organisations for its Grounds Maintenance Tender. Residents were advised to forward any views on the Grounds Maintenance Contract via their Ward Councillors to the Head of Leisure Services.

A resident drew attention to a particular area where the current Grounds Maintenance Contract seemed to be failing between Benjamin Road and David Way as there were a number of weeds a metre high and some detritus surrounding them. Members agreed this should be drawn to the attention of the Head of Leisure Services.

(c)Bus Services

A Rockley Park resident commented on the lack of buses from Rockley Park to Poole, particularly in the evening. She commented that visitors to the complex, as well as local people, expected better. With regard to the fire at the Co-op, she queried how and where people in Hamworthy without access to transport were to go shopping?

A Member explained that thanks to the efforts of the Ward Councillors Asda was offering a free bus service to its Store. A Member explained that he was taking up with the Chief Executive of Wilts and Dorset Bus Company, a privately owned company, not Council controlled, the issue of the 154 bus.

A member of the public explained that the free bus to Asda was following the same route as the 94 bus and was operated for the Wilts and Dorset Bus Company by Damory Coaches.

(d)Hamworthy Fire

The Meeting was informed that the Council had appointed an Officer as a contact point for residents with issues arising from the fire, Simon Hendey, Head of Housing and Community Services, and Paula Wade, Community Liaison Officer, who could be contacted for any issues arising from the fire.

(e)Further consultation on the Hamworthy Power Station site

A member of the public queried whether there was to be further consultation with the public and this Area Committee on the J J Gallagher application on the former Power Station site?.

A Member explained that the application had now been submitted by the Developers and it was following the planning process. Any representations should be forwarded to the Local Planning Authority.

A Member explained that, following a presentation to all Councillors by the Developers, he had queried if they would be prepared to make a presentation to residents and the Developer had confirmed this would be possible.