BOROUGH OF POOLE

LOCAL ECONOMY OVERVIEW GROUP

5th JULY 2007

The Meeting commenced at 7.00 pm and finished at 9.50 pm.

Members Present:

Councillor Mrs Dion (Chairman)

Councillor Mrs Walton (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Brooke, Clements, Gregory (substituting for Collier), Mason, Parker, Rampton, Mrs Hillman (substituting for Mrs Stribley) and Wilson (substituting for Trent )

Also present:

CouncillorsAdams, Brown, Bulteel, Chandler, Mrs Deas, Gillard, Mrs Haines, Mrs Long, Martin and Wilkins

Members of the public present: 1

LEO7.07APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Collier, Mrs Stribley and Trent.

LEO8.07MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of 8 March, 15 May and 24 May 2007 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

LEO9.07DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None.

LE10.07REMPLOY FACTORY, ALDER HILLS, POOLE – PETITION

The proposed closure of the Remploy factory, together with the following petition, had been referred to the Overview Group by Council at its meeting on 19 June 2007.

“We the undersigned, call upon Poole Unitary Authority to protest to the highest levels possible against the proposed closure of the REMPLOY factory at Alder Hills. The factory produces quality products to the highest standard and has an excellent reputation both within the UK and abroad.”

The Head of Strategic Planning reported receipt of a letter dated 5 July 2007 from Annette Brooke MP to John McBride, Chief Executive, setting out her representations and support proposing the development of a Centre of Excellence on the site as a training centre for the disabled for the Group’s consideration (circulated at the meeting).

The report of the Head of Strategic Planning set out the background, proposed changes and the Council’s response as follows:-

In 2005 Remploy, the national agency that provided employment services for disabled people, was the subject of a critical National Audit Office report that highlighted shortcomings in the cost effectiveness of the service provided. This resulted in a national review, conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers in the Spring of 2006, which precipitated consultations with the Unions that represent workers in the various factories.

There were over 80 factories across the country, employing about 6,500 people. This utilised 85% of Remploy’s funding but with the remaining 15%, (5 -6,000 disabled people) were placed into mainstream employment each year. There was no prospect of increasing the employment capacity of the existing factory stock but it was proposed that the restructuring would allow Remploy to place up to 20,000 people into mainstream employment each year. The basis of Remploy’s claim was that it could quadruple the numbers of disabled workers able to come off benefit and into employment. It was noted that the Borough of Poole’s Adult Social Care and Wellbeing Unit was able to support significantly more disabled people in mainstream employment than were accommodated at Alder Hills at half the cost per capita.

The results of the national review had been published on 22 May 2007, with accompanying press releases and a meeting with MPs in the House of Commons.

Of the 83 factories across Britain, 32 were to close with a further 11 merging with nearby sites; 2,270 disabled employees affected. Assurances had been given that there would be no compulsory redundancies. Poole, which lost over £800k per annum, was one of the factories to close, affecting 42 disabled and 5 non-disabled staff.

The marine textile manufacture would be concentracted at the Leven plant in Scotland.

There was a 90 day consultation period, running until the end of August and the promised “no compulsory redundancy” policy offered staff three options:

  • Retirement and voluntary redundancy for those over 55;
  • Voluntary redundancy and assistance with the process of finding alternative employment; or
  • Remaining as an employee of Remploy, with the same terms and conditions, but placed in mainstream employment.

The British Association for Supported Employment had responded positively to this review, with 6 disability charities backing the action, the general consensus being that sheltered factories were not sustainable and that funding would be better used in supporting people to find work in mainstream employment. However, the relevant Union opposed the action believing that there was a place for this type of facility for people with particular kinds of disability. Indeed, there were concerns that a number of members of staff who had worked at the Poole factory for over 20 years would find the change difficult to cope with.

Following the review, the Head of Strategic Planning had met the local manager, David Puckett, and Annette Brooke MP on site to understand the nature of the operation and the potential for making wider use of the facility. Both were concerned at the possible outcome of the review and Mr Puckett had some very sensible ideas about expanding the role of the facility to include training to enable people with disabilities to get back to work.

This was followed up over the ensuing months by engaging with:

  • the Council’s Adult Social Care and Wellbeing Unit;
  • the Learning and Skills Council about the possibility of including such a training facility within their Train to Gain initiative; and
  • investigating the possibility of including these ideas within the Borough of Poole’s Local Area Agreement

In the event these proved unachievable.

Officers have engaged with Bob Warner, Chief Executive of Remploy, and Guy Phillips, the Company Secretary, and a team, including officers of Strategic Planning and Adult Social Care and Wellbeing, has been put in place to work with Remploy, Job Centre Plus, the Learning and Skills Council and the Bournemouth and Poole College, to ensure that, should there by closure of the Poole factory, this process was as positive as possible. In particular, there was scope for securing access to additional training and advice to ensure that the number of people placed in mainstream employment was maximised.

The Overview Group expressed concern about the proposed closure and the likely effect this would have on the 43 disabled employees, 25% of whom had been at Remploy for over twenty years and would miss the comradeship of their colleagues and it was felt that they should be supported. There was concern that the change of emphasis of providing work in Remploy’s ‘sheltered’ factories to supporting disabled people into the mainstream workforce, would need to be managed in a careful and sensitive way with support from Remploy. The 25% long term employees may have difficulty in relocating and would need support. It was noted that the viable product (life jackets and other marine products) would be switched to the Leven factory in Scotland). The possibility of providing a Centre of Excellence for training was positive and could be investigated (reference being made to Fourways). It was agreed that the Head of Planning and Strategic Services send an appropriately worded letter of support to the petitioner.

RECOMMENDED that the Council endorse the efforts being made by officers to work with Remploy and other stakeholders to achieve the best possible outcome should the factory close as currently proposed.

LE11.07ISSUES ARISING FROM THE POOLE CORE STRATEGY PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION

The Overview Group considered a note for discussion which highlighted some of the general points that arose from the formal consultation on the Poole Core Strategy Preferred Options and to debate the options on how to move forward in terms of key policy directions.

The Head of Strategic Planning Services requested that a Special Meeting of the Local Economy Overview Group be held at the end of August 2007 because he did not desire to present the final submission of the Core Strategy to the Group completely cold at the beginning of October.

Consultation on the preferred options document had taken place over a 6-week period between 11 April and 23 May 2007. 250 representations had been received (about half of which were in support) from 31 different interests. It became clear that the vast majority of representations had come from organisations or development interests rather than from members of public. This was partly a reflection of the new planning system, in that the Core Strategy focuses on strategic and spatial issues which tended to engage local people less than matters of detail that would be expected to be seen, for instance, in a site-specific allocations DPD.

The key findings were summarised as follows:-

oThere was a preference for Strategic Direction 1 (including GOSW) – the Central Area as a Driver for Economic and Retail Growth – as opposed to the more cautious housing-led regeneration presented in Strategy Direction 2. This was not universal, however, and concerns had been expressed that this would be more difficult to deliver.

oNatural England was supportive of much of the approach towards heathlands, but raised a concern regarding potential impacts upon the Poole Harbour SPA. This appeared to arise from uncertainty over different rates of housing growth which might occur under the 2 strategy directions.

oThere was an argument put forward for the need to consider greenfield sites for employment development, notably at Creekmoor and in North Poole. This matter had also been raised at the RSS Examination in Public.

oAs a counter argument, the value of the green belt was endorsed.

oArguments over the role of employment land and how flexible Poole should be, were raised. In particular this included suggestions to adopt a more relaxed approach to retail, major offices and tourism uses in our employment areas.

oThe Regional Assembly considered that the Core Strategy was in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy.

oSome representors favoured a step change in housing provision due to Poole’s housing needs.

oConversely, there were concerns about the impact of higher densities and redevelopment upon Poole’s character, as well as implications in terms of air quality and congestion.

oThe approach towards the environment and climate change was generally welcomed, although some concerns were expressed about the demands placed upon the development industry, particularly with regard to renewable energy provision.

oHeathland mitigation was clearly a key issue and in general the sub-regional approach to joint working found favour.

oGreen spaces and green links within the urban area were raised as an issue which needed greater attention, particularly in the context of development within the Central Area.

oThe relationship between housing provision and job growth needed to be explained.

oThe preferred approach of introducing character areas covering all of Poole was generally supported, but needed to recognise more than just housing character. Others have raised a concern that this did not focus on the areas of greatest pressure/sensitivity.

oThe strategy of pursuing retail growth was queried as being inherently unsustainable in that it promoted unnecessary consumption of resources.

oTraffic, congestion and density issues were raised in relation to the implications of regional housing targets.

oPromoting cultural development was considered to need greater attention.

What were the main issues to be addressed?

oIt was clear that the impact of development upon Poole’s character was a major concern for residents. It will be important to gain a greater understanding of what we expect to achieve through this process and to consider how we provide the necessary guidance for residents and developers.

oDelivering a mix of housing in terms of type, size and affordability will be a major challenge in Poole.

oDelivering our regeneration and town centre aspirations will require a creative approach to bringing sites forward and engaging with a variety of stakeholders.

oLand will remain a scarce resource. How to balance economic, healthcare and housing needs will continue to provide significant challenges for Poole.

oIdentifying locally how to tackle climate change

oWhilst there was an interim heathland mitigation strategy, the preparation of a longer-term mitigation strategy, in the form of a joint DPD, will be a critical factor in addressing our economic and housing aspirations.

oDelivering a successful, vibrant and culturally stimulating Central Area will remain a key focus.

oFlood risk raises some uncertainties in how to meet Poole’s needs while also minimising the risk of, and exposure to, flooding.

oThere are some uncertainties about what happens once major sites in the Central Area were built out (i.e. post-2016).

A Power Point presentation entitled ‘Moving from Preferred Options to a Submission Document’ was made in support of the Report and covered the following:-

Key Issues and Challenges (1)

  • Addressing environmental issues:

-Renewable energy and sustainable construction

-Avoiding/mitigating flood risk

-Mitigating impacts upon heathland and Poole Harbour

-Air quality on Prime Transport Corridors

  • Influencing the type, size and affordability of dwellings
  • Creating a framework for delivering better places:

-Financial contributions: urban renaissance

-Reducing deprivation: jobs, housing, skills, community facilities

  • Improving all our local centres (quality and functionality)

-Priority centres?

-Getting the right policy emphasis

Key Issues and Challenges (2)

  • Managing the impact of new development:

-Preserving or enhancing character

-Creating places which meet people’s needs

-Minimising the adverse consequences such as traffic congestion, noise, loss of gardens/trees

  • Securing a step change in sustainable travel
  • Full Sail Ahead
  • Town Centre North
  • The lower part of the High Street – managing change as the centre of gravity shifts north
  • Getting the necessary evidence in place

The main points of the discussion were summarised as follows:-

  • Option 1 and Option 2 were not sustainable independently and compromise was required.
  • Character Areas needed to be established and criteria was required.
  • Energy Strategy required for both sustainable and renewable energy.
  • Flexibility to enable redevelopment of old employment land.
  • Affordable Housing Definition required.
  • The need to build more family homes with gardens and less flats.
  • Retention and protection of the Green Belt.
  • Infrastructure and Transportation.
  • Sustainability – no existing strategy.
  • New people needed in the Borough to keep the economy thriving.
  • Planning Appeals – Identify policies to strengthen and support refusals.

AGREED that the Draft Submission be considered by the Local Economy Overview Group at a Special Meeting at the end of August 2007 (all Members of the Council being invited to attend) prior to the submission of the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State in November 2007.

LE12.07SITE SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN – DOCUMENT ISSUES AND OPTIONS

The Overview Group was advised that the background paper, circulated as an Appendix to the Report of the Head of Strategic Planning Services would form the basis of a new leaflet (with a response slip) proposed for public consultation at the end of July 2007 and cover five main issues:-

  • Homes for everyone
  • Employment land
  • Community facilities
  • The Environment
  • Transport

Public feedback from this exercise would inform future work on the Preferred Options for Site Specific Alterations due for completion in the summer of 2008.

Members made the following observations:-

Homes for Everyone
  • More emphasis needed on the provision of combined heat and power for flats and schools etc.
  • Housing figures should be correct and up to date.
Employment Land
  • Allowances should be included for the changing patterns of work ie working from home
  • Young entrepreneurs only wanted small units. These were outgrown and businesses moved out of Poole. Industrial estates should be looked at to see if they were being built to meet requirements.
Environment
  • Designated areas and flooding – eco corridors were important and should not get lost between this document and the Core Strategy. Green corridors and eco corridors should be included.

Finally it was suggested that there was a need to look at how to consult with young people ie presentations in schools. It was also noted that consultation responses were not good in general and not everyone received Poole News.

AGREED that the themes, issues and options put forward in the initial stage of the Specific Allocations Document, namely, Homes for Everyone, Employment Land, Community Facilities, the Environment and Transport, be endorsed with the final wording being agreed by the Head of Strategic Planning Services, the Portfolio Holder for Local Economy.

LE13.08INFORMATION ITEM

RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT MONITORING REPORT 2006-2007

This Report for information by the Head of Strategic Planning Services set out the findings of surveys relating to both residential and employment development undertaken in April 2007 covering the monitoring period 1 April 2006-31 March 2007.

Councillor Brooke felt that this was an important Report which should be considered further by the Overview Group.

It was proposed by Councillor Brooke and seconded by Councillor Parker that the report should be referred to the appropriate Scrutiny Committee, in response to which the Head of Strategic Planning suggested that the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report, which had to be submitted to the Secretary of State by 31 December each year, be considered by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee as a matter of course.

AGREED accordingly.

CHAIRMAN

1