BOROUGH OF POOLE

HAMWORTHY EAST AND WEST AND POOLE TOWN AREA COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 4TH MAY 2005

AT HAMWORTHY MIDDLE SCHOOL, ASHMORE CRESCENT, HAMWORTHY

The meeting commenced at 7.00 p.m. and concluded at 9.15 p.m.

Members of the Committee present:

Councillor Gregory (Chairman)

Councillors Bulteel, Leverett and Wretham.

Members of the public in attendance: approximately 50.

1.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Collyer, Councillor Knight and Councillor White.

2.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Gregory declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 5 as he lived in Castle Street.

Councillors Bulteel, Gregory and Wretham each declared a personal interest in Item 10c as Trustees of the “Old Rope Walk”.

3.MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 2nd March 2005 Meeting be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

UNANIMOUS

The following matters arising from these Minutes were then raised:

a)M.8c (page 9) – Mrs Smeaton maintained that the TV broadcast which Andrew Flockhart, Policy Director, had given on the sale of the tennis courts in front of Carter Community Sports College did not match the statement issued by John Nash, Policy Director (Children’s Services), at the March 2005 meeting. Mrs Smeaton was concerned that the proceeds from the sale of the tennis courts were not being directed towards the cost of the new First School in Hamworthy. Also, Mrs Smeaton felt that a higher sale price should have been agreed than £185,000.

ACTION: Agenda Item 11 has been included as an Information Report to confirm and clarify the date and sale amount being queried.

b)M.8d (page 9) – Mr Howard asked why he had not been issued with a response to questions he had submitted in writing regarding the Dolphin Quays encroachment issue, despite the assurances of Cllr Leverett, made at the March 2005 meeting, that the Chief Executive was in the process of taking his matter forward. Mr Howard stated that he had waited 86 days for an answer to his written submission, which he felt was a clear breach of the Council’s Complaints Procedure. In response, the Chairman suggested that Mr Howard forward a copy of his submission to him, in order that he could investigate this matter on his behalf.

ACTION:The Chief Executive has now contacted Mr Howard, following Cllr Gregory’s request.

In clarifying for those present that Local Authority Committee Agendas did not include a “Matters Arising” item, the Chairman requested that, should individuals or associations have matters arising from Minutes of previous meetings, they should notify the Clerk to the Committee as soon as possible prior to each meeting.

4.PRESENTATION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The Head of Housing and Community Services delivered a presentation on the issue of affordable housing (see attached copy of presentation slides).

In his presentation the Head of Housing and Community Services provided a summary of the following points:

  • What is affordable housing
  • What is the need for affordable housing in Poole
  • How is affordable housing secured
  • Examples of affordable housing schemes in the Borough of Poole

During the ensuing discussion, the following points were made and clarification sought:

  • the Council was confident that, whilst all the affordable units allocated within the Town Centre Regeneration Scheme might not be accommodated on site, during the period of the scheme, units would instead be accommodated on other windfall sites across the town
  • despite rumours to the contrary, the Council had not reserved two units within the affordable housing development adjacent to Asda, but this development would incorporate key worker units, for which Council officers would be eligible to apply
  • in response to the request that a percentage of affordable housing units be reserved for local families, the Head of Housing and Community Services explained that legislation required Local Authorities to operate an “open” Housing Register. He further explained that the Council had chosen to operate its Register on a date order basis, which meant that cases were prioritised according to the number of years a family/individual had lived in the town. The Head of Housing and Community Services also explained that Homelessness legislation did sometimes require Local Authorities to house an individual from outside the Borough of Poole particularly those fleeing a violent situation
  • in response to concerns that the term “affordable housing” was very relative, with units being priced higher than many could afford in Poole, the Head of Housing and Community Services explained that this was a difficulty in Poole, due to the high market prices in the area, but also provided examples where units had been priced reasonably
  • the allocation of key worker affordable housing units was a sustainable way of managing both the local economy, and ensuring that sufficient investment was returned to the housing market.

In conclusion, the Committee thanked the Head of Housing and Community Services for his presentation and noted the points highlighted.

RESOLVED that the presentation be noted.

UNANIMOUS

5.CASTLE STREET – OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER

Councillor Gregory, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote, and Councillor Wretham took the Chair.

The Principal Engineer (Traffic and Parking) presented the Report of the Head of Transportation Services, highlighting the details of the proposed Traffic Regulation Order and the objections that had been received since its advertisement.

The Committee was referred to its previous discussions on this Order at the March 2005 meeting, and to the additional information that had been included in paragraph 3.4 of the Report, as requested.

The Officer reiterated that the main reason for this Order was to improve pedestrian safety in Castle Street and its access onto the Quay, and suggested that the traffic study indicated that vehicles already reverse down the street under the existing arrangement. The Closure should not cause undue problems for residents but it would keep vehicle movements away from the northern footway of the Quay.

During the ensuing discussion, mixed views on the proposed Order were expressed, with those against the recommendation claiming that

  • there were other schemes that the Committee should be committing its transportation budget towards
  • the number of accidents recorded in Castle Street was negligible
  • the modifications would exacerbate difficulties faced by one Castle Street resident in particular in accessing and egressing his driveway due to obstructions caused by unloading vehicles

Those in favour of the recommendation referred to the benefits it would afford to the Quay, both in terms of improving pedestrian safety and assisting long term environmental enhancements to the Quay area.

The Committee then expressed differing views on the recommendation and, whilst mindful of the existing lack of regard for the one way restriction and of the main reason for the Order that pedestrian safety be improved, nonetheless felt that there was insufficient justification to approve the Order.

RESOLVED that the Traffic Regulation Order for Castle Street not be confirmed.

FOR: Cllr Bulteel

ABSTAINED: Cllrs Leverett and Wretham

AGAINST: Nil

6.WOODLANDS AVENUE, TRAFFIC AND PARKING – RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

Councillor Gregory returned to the room and resumed the Chair.

The Principal Engineer (Traffic and Parking) presented the Report of the Head of Transportation Services, highlighting the outcome of the consultation exercise that had been carried out to assess local residents’ views on parking control in Woodlands Avenue and Woodlands Avenue cul-de-sac, and whether or not traffic calming measures should be implemented in Woodlands Avenue. The Committee noted that the majority view was not to impose additional double yellow lines, but merely to support a “no waiting at any time restriction” to be introduced in conjunction with the proposed improvements at the junction of Woodlands Avenue and the Woodlands Avenue cul-de-sac.

During the ensuing discussion, the Secretary of Hamside Residents Association requested that a minor extension to the existing double yellow lines at the junction of Hinchliffe Road with Woodlands Avenue also be agreed

In conclusion, noting residents consultation feedback, the Committee agreed that the “no waiting at any time restriction” should be advertised for the junction of Woodlands Avenue and Woodlands Avenue cul-de-sac, and that, subject to the approval of this Traffic Regulation Order, this be implemented with funds from the proposed development in Woodlands Avenue. Members also expressed support for the request for a minor extension to the existing double yellow lines at the junction of Hinchliffe Road with Woodlands Avenue.

RESOLVED that:

  1. A “no waiting at any time” restriction be put in place at the junction of Woodlands Avenue and the Woodlands Avenue cul-de-sac, when funding is available from the proposed development in Woodlands Avenue.
  1. A minor extension to the existing double yellow lines at the junction of Hinchliffe Road with Woodlands Avenue be agreed;
  1. The response to the introduction of traffic calming in Woodlands Avenue be noted.

UNANIMOUS

7.BAIT DIGGING

The Chairman referred the Committee to its previous discussions on this issue, particularly regarding commercial bait digging within Poole Harbour, and issued an update on progress made so far to clarify the lawfulness of such activities and which agencies were responsible for enforcing laws on bait digging.

The Chairman then read out a statement which had been produced following discussions between himself, and representatives from English Nature and Poole Harbour Commissioners.

During the ensuing discussion, the Chairman advised that one of the consequences of bait digging i.e. the sorting of worms on the public footpath, could constitute a health and safety hazard, and that should any member of the public witness such activity this should be reported to Environmental and Consumer Protection Services.

With regard to the impact this activity had on the local bird population, reassurances were given that English Nature was investigating this matter, and would report back to the Committee in due course.

Clarification was also given that licenses had not been issued within the Holes Bay area for the activity of Pump Scoop Dredging (fishing).

In conclusion, Councillor Gregory asked the Committee to note the progress update, and that, in due course, the Poole Harbour Steering Group would be recommending to Government that legislation be devised to ensure that SSSIs were attributed the appropriate protection from the harmful impact of commercial bait digging.

RESOLVED that the progress update be noted

UNANIMOUS

8.HABOURSIDE PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Chairman referred to the publication of the Habourside Park Management Plan, and invited members of the public to express their views on this by contacting Leisure Services at 30-32 Northmead Drive, Creekmoor on 01202 261303.

RESOLVED that the information Report be noted

UNANIMOUS

  1. TRAFFIC PANEL

The Chairman presented this information Report, which provide details on the Traffic Panel’s discussions regarding waiting restrictions to protect highway access at Wilkins Way, Poole.

RESOLVED that the information report be noted

UNANIMOUS

10.OPEN FORUM/QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

a)Second Lifting Bridge, Wilkins Way(issue raised by Mr Wilson on behalf of the Poole Harbour Association).

The Principal Democratic Support Officer read out the question that had been submitted by Mr Wilson, requesting that the Council confirm that provision would be made for an alternative slipway into the Back Water Channel prior to the stopping up / extinguishment order being made for Wilkins Way.

The Committee noted that the Policy Director responsible for the Bridge Project had responded to Mr Wilson on this matter, to confirm that an alternative slipway would almost certainly to be incorporated on or near Wittles Way. In this reply, the Policy Director had provided reassurances that all objections to this aspect of the Transport and Works Order would be carefully considered and that a clear written statement on the future of the “four ways” would be published before the public enquiry in an attempt to resolve objectors’ concerns.

b)Fly Tipping of Foul Waste Pipes on to Ham Common(issue raised by Mrs Chick on behalf of the Lake Residents Association).

The Principal Democratic Support Officer read out the question that had been submitted by Mrs Chick, asking what the Council would do to prevent apparent ongoing fly tipping of foul waste pipes onto Ham Common by caravan hauliers contracted by Rockley Park.

The Committee noted that the Open Spaces Manager had written to Mrs Chick explaining that the pipe work she had referred to had since been cleared from Ham Common and that he had taken steps to impress upon Officers from Rockley Park Management that contractors transporting mobile homes to and from their site should not discard an material on or adjacent to this land in the future.

Grateful for this response, Mrs Chick highlighted that additional items had since been fly tipped onto the Common, and repeated her request for the Council to take long term measures to prevent future such occurrences.

c)Commercial Sign attached to the wall of Old Rope Walk(issue raised by Mr Chandler).

The Principal Democratic Support Officer read out the question that had been submitted by Mr Chandler, asking whether or not the commercial sign attached to the wall of the “Old Rope Walk” Residential Sheltered Homes was authorised, and whether or not the sheltered housing residents received any benefit from the advertising sign.

The Principal Democratic Support Officer then explained that a Council Enforcement Officer was investigating this matter and that, should it be found that the sign was not authorised, appropriate action would be taken for its removal.

Further clarification was also given that the residents of the sheltered housing scheme at Old Rope Walk did not materially benefit from this sign.

ACTION: The Enforcement Officer has confirmed that the sign is not authorised and that she is working with the proprietor to ensure that the necessary steps were taken for planning permission to be sought.

d)Alternative places for coaches to wait in Lower Hamworthy (issued raised by the secretary of Hamside Residents Association).

The Principal Democratic Support Officer read out the question that had been submitted by the Secretary of Hamside Residents Association (Mrs Smeaton), enquiring where, following discussions on the relocation of coaches from Harbourside Park 2 Car Park, coaches would be redirected for parking in Lower Hamworthy. It was explained that the key reason for this question was due to local residents’ concerns that, if redirected to park in Lower Hamworthy, coaches would then have to cross the old lifting bridge and add to existing traffic congestion problems.

The Committee noted that the Traffic Manager, Transportation Services had written to Mrs Smeaton, explaining that the Council was currently exploring a number of options for the relocation of coach parking, one of which was the ferry terminal at Hamworthy. In this response, the Traffic Manager had also asserted that the number of additional coaches anticipated to cross the bridge as a result of the relocation would be no more than 20 per day.

Grateful for his clarification, Mrs Smeaton nonetheless maintained concerns that 20 additional coach crossings would represent 40 single file coach journeys across the bridge and that this would exacerbate current traffic congestion problems.

e)Enforcement of Planning Conditions and some Statutory Requirements(issue raised by David Howard on behalf of the Parkstone Bay association).

The Principal Democratic Support Officer read out the question that had been submitted by Mr Howard, asking why Council officers were not taking more proactive steps to enforce planning conditions and some statutory requirements imposed on building developments in the Borough.

In response, the Head of Planning, Design and Control Services had issued a statement asserting that the Council was better equipped than many Planning Authorities with a team of three Enforcement Officers and a Monitoring Officer whose specific brief was to target sensitive sites and ensure that development was taking place in accordance with planning consent. In his statement, the Head of Planning, Design and Control Services indicated that all Planning Authorities would admit to depending, to a certain extent, on developers complying with conditions themselves, and that when breaches were identified, Council’s were active in serving the appropriate Notices. The Head of Planning, Design and Control Services had also suggested that the vast majority of significant development sites within the Borough were being developed by national or international developers who understood the need to comply with planning conditions and were, generally speaking, helpful as and when problems were brought to their attention. Finally, he insisted that the compliance of development in Poole was appropriately monitored and that there was not a wide spread breach of planning control in the area as the vast majority of developments took place in line with the approved drawings.