BOROUGH OF POOLE

LOCAL ECONOMY OVERVIEW GROUP

HELD ON 28TH APRIL 2005

THE MEETING STARTED AT 7.00 P.M. AND FINISHED AT 9.05 P.M.

Present:

Councillor Rampton (Vice Chairman) (in the Chair)

Councillors Adams, Belcham (substitute for Councillor White), Brooke, Clements (substitute for Councillor Eades), Mrs Dion (substitute for Councillor Mrs Hives), Gregory, Knight, Mason, Parker and Pethen.

Members of the public present at the meeting: 2

1.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Eades, Mrs Hives and White.

2.MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 13th January 2005 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Vice Chairman (in the Chair).

  1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Clements and Parker declared personal interests in M.6 as members of the Regional Assembly.

4.REGENERATION UPDATE

Bernie Topham, Policy Director, gave a progress report on the Full Sail Ahead Project, and the meeting was advised that the Project Plan had been updated to reflect the three core areas of work as reported at the previous Local Economy Overview Group meeting; namely:

  • Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) and Public Inquiry
  • Procurement of the Bridge and core scheme
  • Bringing forward a comprehensive development in line with the Master Plan.

Progress against all major tasks for the TWAO Public Inquiry was on track. Actions were being taken in line with the Project Plan for the other two areas and they were progressing well.

With regard to the TWAO, she reported that the date for the Public Inquiry had been confirmed as 27th September 2005 and it was likely to last for around four weeks. The meeting was advised that Mrs Smeaton, who was present had agreed to support the Council and would speak at the Public Inquiry. Members thanked Mrs Smeaton for her support on this matter.

The Council had submitted its Statement of Case and was currently preparing draft proofs of evidence. Eighteen objections had also submitted their own Statements of Case and negotiations with PHC and JJG on a number of the objections that they had raised were undertaken. Negotiations were proceeding with the other objectors before the Public Inquiry. The meeting was also advised of the parties who would be representing the Council at the Public Inquiry. The Council was required to appoint a Programme Officer, and this had been approved by the Portfolio Holder.

The following points were also raised:

(a)Procurement – Bernie Topham, Policy Director, reported that the Regeneration Team was currently investigating the procurement options and seeking external advice. It was intended to bring a full report to Members in July, which would include a risk assessment of the options.

(b)Comprehensive development of the Masterplan – A series of meetings were being held with individual landowners to explore an acceptable delivery mechanism. This would provide the framework for the negotiations around the package of obligations and benefits. Again, a full report would be made to Members on progress with the proposed delivery mechanism in July. It was pointed out that a viability study had been undertaken as part of this process which was now complete.

Officers were continuing to work with the Regional Development Agency (RDA), English Partnerships and Housing Corporation to secure their support in bringing forward and maximising the full community benefits of the scheme. It was emphasised that the Council wanted to work closely with landowners to resolve any outstanding problems, but if this was not successful other options would have to be pursued, in line with the Council’s agreed Implementation Strategy.

(c)Crown Estates – Negotiations with the Crown were finally moving forward.

(d)Finance – A full financial report of the scheme was due to be brought forward to Cabinet in July.

AGREED that a progress report on the Full Sail Ahead project be noted.

FOR: Unanimous.

5.ECONOMIC STRATEGY

The Head of Strategic Planning Services submitted a report seeking the Overview Group’s support for continuing joint working with Partners to develop an agreed sub-Regional Economic Development Strategy. As part of his Report, a short presentation was made which highlighted:

  • The purposes of preparing the Strategy
  • Key comments so far
  • Why do we need to be concerned?
  • Strategic decision making capacity
  • What can we do?
  • Proposed targets
  • Possible future organisation structure

He stated that a vibrant economy was a priority of the Council and a Strategy was a vital component for this for Poole and the wider conurbation. Members had received presentations, not only in connection with Economic Development activity, but also in respect of Regional and Sub-Regional Planning, all of which suggested that we could not afford to be complacent about the economic prospects of the area.

In particular, the following concerns had been highlighted:

  • relatively low earnings;
  • productivity lower than even the regional average;
  • high house prices with high price: income ratio;
  • a lower concentration of knowledge based employment that one would like;
  • graduate level skills lagging behind the regional average.

The Head of Strategic Planning Services reported that members of the business community had, expressed concern at the way in which the sub-region presented itself to the wider world at a meeting with Local Authority Chief Executives last year. This was followed by a meeting with Chief Executives, Portfolio Holders and other Officers of the three Strategic Authorities in October 2004, which gave considerable impetus to the work of developing an Economic Development Strategy for the area. There emerged a determination to:

  • Accept that there was no room for complacency
  • A recognition that a clear and widely accepted vision was required
  • A need to speak with a clear Sub-Regional voice
  • Recognise that aspirations required support for a policy framework designed to achieve those aspirations.

The Meeting was advised that preparation of a Strategy had proceeded, and a copy of the draft was attached to the Agenda. It sought to quantify aspirations and proposed a Strategy based on the need to address five key issues:

(i)Providing the necessary physical infrastructure

(ii)Ensuring adequate provision of affordable housing

(iii)Improving the skills of the working population

(iv)Improving the entrepreneurial and innovation levels of local business

(v)Securing effective partnership working so that the Sub-Region was clear about its aspirations and signed up to what had been done.

The Head of Strategic Planning Services reported that a further meeting of Chief Executives, Portfolio Holders and Officers was hosted by Bournemouth Borough Council on 8th April and the draft Strategy had received widespread support, although it was acknowledged that amendments would be required to ensure that it took into account the rural perspective. The meeting also addressed Governance arrangements.

The Dorset Chief Executives had discussed this at their meeting last week and had supported progress to date. Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Economic Partnership (BDPEP) would be meeting in June, and Cabinet in May would also be asked to approve the Strategy. It was felt that a high profile Conference to sign off the Strategy and to launch it with other key Sub-Regional Partners and invited Stakeholders would take the matter forward. Subsequently, the Strategy would inform the advice of the Strategic Authorities to be submitted in May 2004 to the South West Regional Assembly in respect of the Regional Spatial Strategy.

Members of the Overview Group considered the details of the Strategy and raised the following points:

  • High and commercial rents were causing concern
  • Students were being lost to other areas and then couldn’t afford to return to live here
  • Rural and urban differences still existed and it was essential for rural districts to promote the Sub-Region
  • Some growth was essential, otherwise we would become another “Eastbourne”
  • Changes in the way people now shopped should be reflected in the Strategy
  • Training was a concern and courses should be made available for groups such as parents with young children as, at present, their needs were not being met.
  • More work was needed on Affordable Housing and other options to providing it by innovative methods and solutions should be explored
  • The knowledge based economy should be encouraged and relocations to the area should be supported
  • NVQ’s should be encouraged and not just degree courses
  • Rural aspirations and urban aspirations should be identified separately
  • Sustainability was essential
  • Migrant skills were an important factor to be taken into account
  • The Actions mentioned in the Strategy needed to be specified and how they were to be achieved
  • Regional Assembly representation needed to be strengthened
  • Earnings were too low to enable some to get a mortgage and affordable housing was an issue which affected low paid workers coming into the area

The Portfolio Holder for Local Economy stated that a unified statement should be supported by all parties and Regions’ aspirations must be clearly put by BDPEP so that funding was forthcoming. It was essential for the needs of the area to be built on with Partners, and it was hoped that the new structure would give a stronger voice. There were issues with rural areas who were reluctant to have more growth and employment which was sustainable.

AGREED that

(i)The Overview Group notes the work undertaken so far and endorses the approach to the development of a Sub-Regional Economic Development Strategy, together with the proposed changes to the arrangements for partnership working;

(ii)The aspirations expressed in the draft Strategy inform the development of Spatial Strategy in the Sub-Region, including the advice submitted by the Strategic Authorities to the Regional Assembly and the preparation of the Borough’s Local Development Framework.

FOR: Councillors Adams, Belcham, Mrs Dion, Gregory, Knight, Parker and Pethen.

ABSTAINED: Councillors Brooke and Mason

(Councillor Clements did not vote on this item).

6.REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY SUBMISSION

The Head of Strategic Planning Services presented a report informing members of the Overview Group of progress to date on the South East Dorset Joint Study Area and to allow Members to consider key issues in advance of the remaining round of joint study area meetings.

He emphasised the fact the South East Dorset Joint Study area was one of a number of Sub-Regional Studies taking place in the South West with the purpose of informing the Regional Spatial Strategy. The Bournemouth/Poole Principal Urban Area should be the focus for new development in South East Dorset, hence, the Regional Assembly was expecting the Sub-Regional work to test the ability of the Principal Urban Area (PUA) to accommodate the bulk of future economic development and associated growth over the RSS period (up to 2026).

The three Strategic Authorities of Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole were expected to submit to the Regional Assembly a first detailed proposal for the Joint Study Area (JSA). This would comprise a preferred vision and Strategy, together with up to two to three pages of policies/text to form part of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). This would be supported by detailed technical work.

The Head of Strategic Planning Services stated that the three Strategic Authorities were expected to offer their initial observations on possible housing distributions within their areas by 29th April, with a first draft distribution between 3rd and 9th May. Initially, all Sub-Regional work was to be completed by the end of March 2005. However, the Regional Assembly had agreed that this was unrealistic and the timetable has now been relaxed slightly. Advice now had to be submitted by September 2005. In order to meet these deadlines, a series of Member meetings had been set to consider the JSA submission for South East Dorset and these were detailed in his report.

His report detailed the emerging issues and conclusions to date with regard to:

  • Constraints upon the ability of the conurbation to expand
  • The option of a strategic development site to the west of the conurbation needed to be considered in relation to its ability to offer a long term strategic development option.
  • The role of the existing PUA needed to be resolved
  • A view towards urban extensions or a possible strategic development to the west of the conurbation which needed to be considered having regard to the pressures on the PUA. A clear vision was needed of where the PUA wanted to be by 2026, and how the chosen Strategy supported this.

A short presentation was given to Members and the key issues which had to be taken on board were:

  • Housing affordability
  • Decline in house building
  • The importance of the area for population and jobs (second highest despite a decline in house building)
  • Concerns at the decline in numbers in the 20 to 29 age group in the area, despite significant employment growth.
  • Low average earnings
  • Complacency
  • Was there a need to be bolder in the future in meeting growth?

Members made the following points:

  • In view of land shortage, high-rise/high-tech industries should be encouraged
  • Infrastructure was needed before more growth
  • Pressure would come in the future on the Green Belt
  • Rather than “housing” led, the Strategy should be “need” led
  • Any growth should be sustainable with proper Planning and Transportation strategies in place
  • Market towns in the South West had stated that they did not want to see all of the growth in PUA’s, but that this should be shared
  • Concern at “losing what we have”

AGREED that this Overview Group notes the contents of the Report by the Head of Strategic Planning Services and the key issues for the sub-region in advance of the remaining round of JSA Advisory and Steering Group meetings, taking into account the comments made above.

FOR: Unanimous.

Chairman

1