Notes from Poole Residents’ Themed Meeting – BPCCRA December 2015

Notes from Poole Residents’ Themed Meeting

Wednesday 9th December 2015, Cattistock Suite, Civic Centre

Attendees:    
Sue Bellamy (SB) Poole Quays Forum
Vickie Campbell (VC) Secretary, Canford Heath Neighbourhood Watch
David Gillard (DG) Society of Poole Men
Christopher Jackson (CJ) Uniting the Conurbation
Allen Lewis (AL)   Resident, Broadstone
Monique Munroe (MM)  Canford Heath Neighbourhood Watch / Ideas2Actions / Poole CVS
Ken Sanson (KS) Chairman, Sandbanks Association
Bob Smith (BS) Bourne Valley Action Group
Jackie Smith (JaS) Bourne Valley Action Group
John Sprackling (JS) Chairman, Branksome Park & Canford Cliffs District Residents
Assoc.    
Graham Tuffin (GT) Chairman, Talbot Village Residents Association

 

Cllr Janet Walton, Leader of the Council (JW)

Cllr May Haines, Deputy Leader of Council (MH)

Cllr Karen Rampton

Cllr Drew Mellor

Cllr Mohan Iyengar

 

The meeting started at 10:38

 

  1. Welcome and introductions

MH introduced the meeting, reminding attendees that the agenda had been circulated beforehand and that notes would be circulated afterwards. All attendees introduced themselves.

 

  1. Combined Authority

JW confirmed that:

  • The term ‘combined authority’ was used to describe a formal governance structure to strengthen councils’ collective approach to strategic decisions on transport, economic development and regeneration
  • Leaders of the 9 councils in Dorset had proposed so far to include only transport and economic development in the functions of a combined authority for the county
  • Borough of Poole (BoP) would retain its sovereignty and its own teams for economic development and transport
  • There would be a benefit in having a single point of contact between Dorset and central government on strategic matters.
  • The greater benefit would be in the ability to bid for larger opportunities and attract new sources of funding

Residents made the following observations:

  • There could be an advantage of a strategic view being taken across Dorset and from having a single point of contact for discussions across the councils rather than the many-to-many arrangement now.
  • The function would need to have a legal status and an overview/scrutiny mechanism in place.
  • The voting mechanism in the cross-county function needed to ensure equitable outcomes. (For instance, issues at a ward or district level should not be at risk of being voted down by members who were remote from the issue).
  • The central function had to be empowered to make decisions for the good of Dorset, recognising that each council would be inclined to argue for its own interests

 

Notes from Poole Residents’ Themed Meeting

 

Wednesday 9th December 2015, Cattistock Suite, Civic Centre

 

  • Equally, a central function could be against the principle of ‘local solutions to local problems’. As such, its design was important to ensure it had residents’ support.
  • The new function would have a challenge to be effective with only a remit for transport and economic development when there would be dependencies to/from many other functions which remained under local control. (JW agreed that this was a risk to manage in the set-up of any function).
  • There was the possibility for all external contracting to be done pan-Dorset by the new function, in the context of the business of a combined authority. (However, JW responded on this point that this wasn’t the current intention)
  • A combination with Bournemouth could be useful if such things as roads-planning and maintenance could be aligned
  • The proposed new function would be a combined administration across Dorset to serve strategic purposes

 

  1. Business Case for Unitary Authority

JW confirmed that:

  • The discussions for a possible South-East Dorset single unitary authority were in response to central government’s wish for local authorities to become more ambitious and innovative. The discussions were also supported by the Local Government Association (LGA).
  • The intention was to explore the possibility of a single unitary authority for south-east Dorset. The leaders and chief executives of those councils had met in October 2015, resulting in an agreement to explore three alternative ways forward, namely:
    1. a Dorset-wide unitary authority covering the territory represented by the current 9 councils;
    2. a south-east Dorset unitary authority covering the territories of Poole, Bournemouth, Christchurch and East Dorset councils; or
    3. a continuation of the current arrangement of councils
  • Council’s approval would be sought in December 2015 to draw up business cases for these options.
  • Once business cases had been developed – over approximately 3-4 months – the discussion would come back into council to debate the way forward.
  • There was a strong feeling across the leader and cabinet to protect Poole’s identity and sovereignty, incl. heritage and mayoralty.

Residents made the following observations:

  • The 5 councils outside the south-east could in theory form their own unitary. (Though JW confirmed that the only idea so far in this regard had been raised by Dorset County Council for a Dorset-wide unitary).
  • External expertise should be used to look objectively across all options and to challenge robustly for efficiencies and benefits. (JW responded that this would happen and that the Local Government Association would support the development of business cases, but not their evaluation).
  • If council tax increases were capped by central government, the main benefits from any join-ups had to be from cost savings. (JW added that Borough of Poole had achieved £60m in efficiencies since 2010 and would be finding another £20 by 2020. But the emphasis would be on fostering economic growth and improving the value-for-money of services, not just cuts per se).
  • There was a wish to keep Poole’s identity. A unitary could have more influence with central government and would offer economies of scale. But the defence of Poole’s heritage would be important in fostering residents’ support. (JW concurred with this point).
  • It was important for councillors to know residents’ views. Would there be a referendum? (JW replied that public consultation – as well as face-to-face meetings – would include digital communication to reach people and canvass opinion. For example, the ‘Email Me’ newsletter now had 35,000 subscribers in the Borough. So while face-to-face would remain important, the intention was to use a range of options to reach across the community.

Notes from Poole Residents’ Themed Meeting

Wednesday 9th December 2015, Cattistock Suite, Civic Centre

First of all it was important to develop the cost-benefit analyses for the options and then to identify the key questions for debate.

3.11 Support was expressed for the approach to develop business cases first. It was important to take the time to develop complete scenarios and describe their benefits to residents. This would be more meaningful than asking for public opinion before knowing the facts and evidence in those business cases.

 

 

  1. Current position on Council budget for 2016/17

MH confirmed that:

  • Poole council had a challenge to reduce expenditure by £18-20 million over the next 4 years. The target was deliberately quoted in a range rather than a point figure to give room to manoeuvre where new requirements from central government carried the risk of bringing further challenges.
  • At the start of the fiscal year beginning 1st April 2016, the forecast challenge was £5.8m for that year – taking a view of the central government funding settlement. At the time of the October’15 forecast, that gap had been revised down to £3.9m and most recently revised to £1.6m.
  • The gap-reduction had been achieved by taking difficult decisions. The more straight-forward savings in support areas had been made – such as non-replacement of staff leaving, part-time working and rationalisation of services. (An example given was Streetscene – now a one-stop-shop for street maintenance rather than the complex multi-team arrangement it replaced). Other changes included:
    1. Adjustments to the green-bin collection and charges
    2. Reduced grants to voluntary organisations
    3. Rationalised office space – such as the vacation of St John’s House and the incorporation of the transport team into Civic Centre
    4. Reduction in the square-meterage of a workspace in the office
  • There was a £13.7m target for cost-reduction to 2020. As the opportunities in Poole-unitary became harder to find, there was a need to collaborate with partners outside Poole for further improvements – hence, the explorations into combined authority and ‘quads’.
  • Unless arrangements were to change, Poole Council remained legally responsible for the provision of council services to the Borough.
  • Two types of reserves were defined:
    1. Earmarked (held for a specific purpose) reserves
    2. Unearmarked (general) reserves

Following a review, a request would be put to council in December 2015 for a further £1.5m to be taken from earmarked reserves to help support the MTFP over 3 years from 2016/17.

 

  1. Proposal for change to waste collection

MH confirmed that:

  • Poole’s current practice of weekly black-bin collections was in a minority, as 70% of other councils across the UK collected bi-weekly.
  • A working group had explored waste-collection in depth over more than a year. In phase 1 they had examined whether food-waste could be a separate collection, taking the experiences from the Isle of Wight, but concluded this wasn’t yet viable for Poole. In phase 2, the examination was whether bi-weekly collections brought undesirable effects such as overflowing bins and vermin. The experience from other councils was that it did not.
  • The potential move to bi-weekly collection in Poole would, however, offer exceptions to residents with a demonstrably greater need for waste collection, such as larger families with young children and those with medical conditions.

Residents made the following observations:

Notes from Poole Residents’ Themed Meeting

Wednesday 9th December 2015, Cattistock Suite, Civic Centre

  • Would there be staff reductions if collections were halved? (MH replied that some staff reductions were likely)
  • Poole and Bournemouth used different colour-schemes for bins. To align them could be an item for the ‘quads’ discussions.
  • Food waste could be recycled as fuel pellets. (MH replied that food waste was already recovered. A proportion of that waste was sent to New Earth Solutions where a mechanical recovery was done, allowing minimal divert to landfill).
  • The website www.weneedthat.com was mentioned as helpful in regard to recycling.

 

 

  1. Questions and Answers / Open Forum

Residents made the following points:

  • Other cost savings could be pursued such as outsourcing and pension management, dog-wardens and tree-wardens. (MH replied that some outsourcing had already been achieved, such as with Tricuro in adult social care, and that all options would be explored. For example, another potential opportunity was to take over the management of Bournemouth’s refuse site for a fee)
  • Residents could be asked to pay a little more council tax to protect services.
  • External expertise should be sought by the council to drive opportunities in commercialism. A resident felt that someone with the skills and appropriate incentive could bring more urgency and transparency to the commercial area. (MH suggested that more general details could be shared, but not items which were commercially sensitive – and this point was accepted).
  • The Transparency pages on the Borough of Poole website needed to be updated.
  • In response to a question on business rates and the Chancellor’s statement, MH reminded everyone that the current “50/50” scheme still left Poole only 25 pence in the Pound. The new statement that local councils could retain 100% of business rates from 2020 was promising but in her view was likely to come with extra responsibilities as a quid-pro-quo. Those responsibilities could become clearer in consultations with central government in 2016 but for now the mood was cautious.
  • In response to another question MH mentioned that the annual meeting on council budget would be held on 22nd January 2016 and that any anyone who wished to attend was asked to let her or Fiona Fryer (fryer@poole.gov.uk) know in advance.

 

 

  1. Feedback

 Forms were circulated, completed and returned by attendees.

  • In the spirit of respecting the confidentiality of peoples’ feedback, a general summary was that the meeting was well received and that the limited attendance allowed a high level of quality discussion. A challenge going forward would be to retain this value while reaching out to larger groups.

 

The meeting closed at 12:20.

Notes from Poole Residents’ Themed Meeting Dec 2015

Notes from Poole Residents’ Themed Meeting
Wednesday 9th December 2015, Cattistock Suite, Civic Centre

Attendees:

Sue Bellamy (SB) Poole Quays Forum
Vickie Campbell (VC) Secretary, Canford Heath Neighbourhood Watch
David Gillard (DG) Society of Poole Men Christopher Jackson (CJ) Uniting the Conurbation Allen Lewis (AL) Resident, Broadstone
Monique Munroe (MM) Canford Heath Neighbourhood Watch / Ideas2Actions / Poole CVS Ken Sanson (KS) Chairman, Sandbanks Association
Bob Smith (BS) Bourne Valley Action Group
Jackie Smith (JaS) Bourne Valley Action Group
John Sprackling (JS) Chairman, Branksome Park & Canford Cliffs District Residents
Assoc.
Graham Tuffin (GT) Chairman, Talbot Village Residents Association

Cllr Janet Walton, Leader of the Council (JW)
Cllr May Haines, Deputy Leader of Council (MH) Cllr Karen Rampton
Cllr Drew Mellor
Cllr Mohan Iyengar

The meeting started at 10:38

1. Welcome and introductions

MH introduced the meeting, reminding attendees that the agenda had been circulated beforehand and that notes would be circulated afterwards.

All attendees introduced themselves.

2. Combined Authority

JW confirmed that:

2.1 The term ‘combined authority’ was used to describe a formal governance structure to strengthen councils’ collective approach to strategic decisions on transport, economic development and regeneration
2.2 Leaders of the 9 councils in Dorset had proposed so far to include only transport and economic development in the functions of a combined authority for the county
2.3 Borough of Poole (BoP) would retain its sovereignty and its own teams for economic development and transport
2.4 There would be a benefit in having a single point of contact between Dorset and central government on strategic matters.
2.5 The greater benefit would be in the ability to bid for larger opportunities and attract new sources of funding

Residents made the following observations:

2.6 There could be an advantage of a strategic view being taken across Dorset and from having a single point of contact for discussions across the councils rather than the many-to-many arrangement now.
2.7 The function would need to have a legal status and an overview/scrutiny mechanism in place.
2.8 The voting mechanism in the cross-county function needed to ensure equitable outcomes. (For instance, issues at a ward or district level should not be at risk of being voted down by members who were remote from the issue).
2.9 The central function had to be empowered to make decisions for the good of Dorset, recognising that each council would be inclined to argue for its own interests

2.10 Equally, a central function could be against the principle of ‘local solutions to local problems’. As such, its design was important to ensure it had residents’ support.
2.11 The new function would have a challenge to be effective with only a remit for transport and economic development when there would be dependencies to/from many other functions which remained under local control. (JW agreed that this was a risk to manage in the set-up of any function).
2.12 There was the possibility for all external contracting to be done pan-Dorset by the
new function, in the context of the business of a combined authority. (However, JW responded on this point that this wasn’t the current intention)
2.13 A combination with Bournemouth could be useful if such things as roads-planning and maintenance could be aligned
2.14 The proposed new function would be a combined administration across Dorset to serve strategic purposes

3. Business Case for Unitary Authority

JW confirmed that:

3.1 The discussions for a possible South-East Dorset single unitary authority were in response to central government’s wish for local authorities to become more ambitious and innovative. The discussions were also supported by the Local Government Association (LGA).
3.2 The intention was to explore the possibility of a single unitary authority for south-east Dorset.
The leaders and chief executives of those councils had met in October 2015, resulting in an agreement to explore three alternative ways forward, namely:
a. a Dorset-wide unitary authority covering the territory represented by the current 9 councils;
b. a south-east Dorset unitary authority covering the territories of Poole, Bournemouth, Christchurch and East Dorset councils; or
c. a continuation of the current arrangement of councils
3.3 Council’s approval would be sought in December 2015 to draw up business cases for these options.
3.4 Once business cases had been developed – over approximately 3-4 months – the discussion would come back into council to debate the way forward.
3.5 There was a strong feeling across the leader and cabinet to protect Poole’s identity and sovereignty, incl. heritage and mayoralty.

Residents made the following observations:

3.6 The 5 councils outside the south-east could in theory form their own unitary. (Though JW confirmed that the only idea so far in this regard had been raised by Dorset County Council for a Dorset-wide unitary).
3.7 External expertise should be used to look objectively across all options and to challenge robustly for efficiencies and benefits. (JW responded that this would happen and that the Local Government Association would support the development of business cases, but not their evaluation).
3.8 If council tax increases were capped by central government, the main benefits from any join- ups had to be from cost savings. (JW added that Borough of Poole had achieved £60m in efficiencies since 2010 and would be finding another £20 by 2020. But the emphasis would be on fostering economic growth and improving the value-for-money of services, not just cuts per se).
3.9 There was a wish to keep Poole’s identity. A unitary could have more influence with central government and would offer economies of scale. But the defence of Poole’s heritage would be important in fostering residents’ support. (JW concurred with this point).
3.10 It was important for councillors to know residents’ views. Would there be a referendum? (JW replied that public consultation – as well as face-to-face meetings – would include digital communication to reach people and canvass opinion. For example, the ‘Email Me’ newsletter now had 35,000 subscribers in the Borough. So while face-to-face would remain important, the intention was to use a range of options to reach across the community.

First of all it was important to develop the cost-benefit analyses for the options and then to identify the key questions for debate.
3.11 Support was expressed for the approach to develop business cases first. It was important to take the time to develop complete scenarios and describe their benefits to residents. This would be more meaningful than asking for public opinion before knowing the facts and evidence in those business cases.

4. Current position on Council budget for 2016/17

MH confirmed that:

4.1 Poole council had a challenge to reduce expenditure by £18-20 million over the next 4 years.
The target was deliberately quoted in a range rather than a point figure to give room to manoeuvre where new requirements from central government carried the risk of bringing further challenges.
4.2 At the start of the fiscal year beginning 1st April 2016, the forecast challenge was £5.8m for that year – taking a view of the central government funding settlement. At the time of the October’15 forecast, that gap had been revised down to £3.9m and most recently revised to
£1.6m.
4.3 The gap-reduction had been achieved by taking difficult decisions. The more straight-forward savings in support areas had been made – such as non-replacement of staff leaving, part- time working and rationalisation of services. (An example given was Streetscene – now a
one-stop-shop for street maintenance rather than the complex multi-team arrangement it replaced). Other changes included:
a. Adjustments to the green-bin collection and charges b. Reduced grants to voluntary organisations
c. Rationalised office space – such as the vacation of St John’s House and the incorporation of the transport team into Civic Centre
d. Reduction in the square-meterage of a workspace in the office
4.4 There was a £13.7m target for cost-reduction to 2020. As the opportunities in Poole-unitary became harder to find, there was a need to collaborate with partners outside Poole for further improvements – hence, the explorations into combined authority and ‘quads’.
4.5 Unless arrangements were to change, Poole Council remained legally responsible for the provision of council services to the Borough.
4.6 Two types of reserves were defined:
a. Earmarked (held for a specific purpose) reserves b. Unearmarked (general) reserves

Following a review, a request would be put to council in December 2015 for a further £1.5m to be taken from earmarked reserves to help support the MTFP over 3 years from 2016/17.

5. Proposal for change to waste collection

MH confirmed that:

5.1 Poole’s current practice of weekly black-bin collections was in a minority, as 70% of other councils across the UK collected bi-weekly.
5.2 A working group had explored waste-collection in depth over more than a year. In phase 1
they had examined whether food-waste could be a separate collection, taking the experiences from the Isle of Wight, but concluded this wasn’t yet viable for Poole. In phase 2, the examination was whether bi-weekly collections brought undesirable effects such as overflowing bins and vermin. The experience from other councils was that it did not.
5.3 The potential move to bi-weekly collection in Poole would, however, offer exceptions to residents with a demonstrably greater need for waste collection, such as larger families with young children and those with medical conditions.

Residents made the following observations:

5.4 Would there be staff reductions if collections were halved? (MH replied that some staff reductions were likely)
5.5 Poole and Bournemouth used different colour-schemes for bins. To align them could be an item for the ‘quads’ discussions.
5.6 Food waste could be recycled as fuel pellets. (MH replied that food waste was already recovered. A proportion of that waste was sent to New Earth Solutions where a mechanical recovery was done, allowing minimal divert to landfill).
5.7 The website www.weneedthat.com was mentioned as helpful in regard to recycling.

6. Questions and Answers / Open Forum

Residents made the following points

6.1 Other cost savings could be pursued such as outsourcing and pension management, dog- wardens and tree-wardens. (MH replied that some outsourcing had already been achieved, such as with Tricuro in adult social care, and that all options would be explored. For example, another potential opportunity was to take over the management of Bournemouth’s refuse site for a fee)
6.2 Residents could be asked to pay a little more council tax to protect services.
6.3 External expertise should be sought by the council to drive opportunities in commercialism. A resident felt that someone with the skills and appropriate incentive could bring more urgency and transparency to the commercial area. (MH suggested that more general details could be shared, but not items which were commercially sensitive – and this point was accepted).
6.4 The Transparency pages on the Borough of Poole website needed to be updated.
6.5 In response to a question on business rates and the Chancellor’s statement, MH reminded everyone that the current “50/50” scheme still left Poole only 25 pence in the Pound. The new statement that local councils could retain 100% of business rates from 2020 was promising but in her view was likely to come with extra responsibilities as a quid-pro-quo. Those responsibilities could become clearer in consultations with central government in 2016 but for now the mood was cautious.
6.6 In response to another question MH mentioned that the annual meeting on council budget would be held on 22nd January 2016 and that any anyone who wished to attend was asked to let her or Fiona Fryer (f.fryer@poole.gov.uk) know in advance.

7. Feedback
7.1 Forms were circulated, completed and returned by attendees.
7.2 In the spirit of respecting the confidentiality of peoples’ feedback, a general summary was that the meeting was well received and that the limited attendance allowed a high level of quality discussion. A challenge going forward would be to retain this value while reaching out to
larger groups.

The meeting closed at 12:20.

Community Working Group Meeting Minutes – BPCCRA November

COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP MEETING MINUTES

Planning & Regeneration Services including Building Consultancy

Wednesday, 25th November 2015 2.00pm – 4.45 p.m. Room 134

 

ATTENDEES:

Borough of Poole Attendees:

Stephen Thorne (ST) Head of Planning & Regeneration inc Building Consultancy (Chair)
Richard Genge (RTG) Planning and Regeneration Manager
Sue Ludwig (SPL) Business Manager
Clare Taylor (CPT) PA to Stephen Thorne

 

Community Groups / Resident Associations Attendees:

Graham Whitehall

Ann Wood Chris Allenby Brian Finch Pat Bullock Malcolm Tyler

(GW) (AW) (CA) (BF) (PB) (MT) The Lilliput and Neighbourhood Association (LANA) Hamside Residents Association

Poole Quays Forum

Friends of Harbour Reach

Friends of Hamworthy Park

Lake Residents Association

Terence Stewart

Gerald Rigler

(TS)

(GR)

Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs and District Residents Association

Society of Poole Men & Broadstone N Forum

 

Apologies External:-

Ken Bearcroft

Tony Hamilton

(KB) (TH) Parkstone Bay Association

Poole Agenda 21

 

Tim Cundey Wayne Hancock Candice McMahon

 

(TC) (WH) (CM)

 

Watch this Space

Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs and District Residents Association

Lake Residents Association

 

Apologies Borough of Poole:-

Keith Pegram

Steve Dring

(KDP)

(SD)

Change and Performance Manager

Senior Planning Officer

 

  1. Around the Table Introductions

ST welcomed all to the meeting.

  1. Minutes and Matters Arising – last regular CWG meeting held Thursday, 24th

September 2015

ST requested comments on the minutes from the last meeting. The following items were raised:

 

Item 8 – Nitrates in Poole Harbour SPD. Please provide the link to the background paper. The link is:

http://www.poole.gov.uk/planning-and-buildings/planning/ldp/spds/nitrogen-reduction/

 

Item 6 – Timetable for Policy Documents. It was noted that this is much clearer.   GR advised that he had emailed BoP regarding the Poole Core Strategy Review. The Strategic Planning and the Duty to Co-operate and Strategic Planning Forum was discussed in detail. ST explained regarding the Local Plan process, the Growth Board, LEP, LNP, Place & Prosperity Group and the way in which these work and fit in with each other.

 

TS requested that BoP provide an organisational chart of the CEO’s. ST will look at this.

 

Action: ST to prepare an organisational chart of the CEO’s in respect of the Strategic

Planning and the Duty to Cooperate.

 

Community Working Group Meeting Minutes – BPCCRA Nov 2015

COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP MEETING MINUTES

Planning & Regeneration Services including Building Consultancy

Wednesday, 25th November 2015 2.00pm – 4.45 p.m. Room 134

 

ATTENDEES:
Borough of Poole Attendees:
Stephen Thorne (ST) Head of Planning & Regeneration inc Building Consultancy (Chair)
Richard Genge (RTG) Planning and Regeneration Manager
Sue Ludwig (SPL) Business Manager
Clare Taylor (CPT) PA to Stephen Thorne
Community Groups / Resident Associations Attendees:
Graham Whitehall (GW) The Lilliput and Neighbourhood Association (LANA)
Ann Wood (AW) Hamside Residents Association
Chris Allenby (CA) Poole Quays Forum
Brian Finch (BF) Friends of Harbour Reach
Pat Bullock (PB) Friends of Hamworthy Park
Malcolm Tyler (MT) Lake Residents Association
Terence Stewart (TS) Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs and District Residents Association
Gerald Rigler (GR) Society of Poole Men & Broadstone N Forum
Apologies External:-
Ken Bearcroft (KB) Parkstone Bay Association
Tony Hamilton (TH) Poole Agenda 21
Tim Cundey (TC) Watch this Space
Wayne Hancock (WH) Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs and District Residents Association
Candice McMahon (CM) Lake Residents Association
Apologies Borough of Poole:-
Keith Pegram (KDP) Change and Performance Manager
Steve Dring (SD) Senior Planning Officer
Item Description Action
1. Around the Table Introductions
ST welcomed all to the meeting.
2. Minutes  and  Matters  Arising  –  last  regular  CWG  meeting  held  Thursday,  24th
September 2015
ST requested comments on the minutes from the last meeting.  The following items were
raised:
Item 8 – Nitrates in Poole Harbour SPD.  Please provide the link to the background paper.
The link is:
http://www.poole.gov.uk/planning-and-buildings/planning/ldp/spds/nitrogen-reduction/
Item 6 – Timetable for Policy Documents.  It was noted that this is much clearer.  GR
advised that he had emailed BoP regarding the Poole Core Strategy Review.  The Strategic
Planning and the Duty to Co-operate and Strategic Planning Forum was discussed in detail.
ST explained regarding the Local Plan process, the Growth Board, LEP, LNP, Place &
Prosperity Group and the way in which these work and fit in with each other.
TS requested that BoP provide an organisational chart of the CEO’s.  ST will look at this.
Action:  ST to prepare an organisational chart of the CEO’s in respect of the Strategic
Planning and the Duty to Cooperate.

 

 

 

 

Item Description Action
ST advised regarding the SPPMF (Strategic Planning Policy Managers Forum), which he
chairs and advised that there are no powers within this group.  GR enquired if there are
minutes available from this meeting online.  ST advised that this is not a public meeting,
there are no minutes, only notes, which are not made public.  The meeting is designed for
the members to express their views confidentially.
It was noted that the new Planning Policy & Implementation Manager, Nick Perrins, has been
appointed and will be commencing with BoP in mid February 2016.
GR advised that he had sent an email with the timetable for the Poole Core Strategy Review,
which needs to be updated online.  ST will request Steve Dring (SD) to update as soon as
possible.
Action:  ST will request Steve Dring (SD) to update the timetable for the Poole Core
Strategy Review, at his earliest convenience.
Item 11 – paragraph 3.  It was noted that CA should be included in the Neighbourhood
Forum’s discussions in order to agree a new boundary.  CPT to update the minutes to reflect.
Action:  CPT to update the minutes of the last meeting held to include CA in Item 11,
paragraph 3.
TS enquired as to who has control, from Planning, in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan.
RTG advised that BoP would encourage against a controlling plan.  ST explained that the
SPD is a guidance document only and in a lower position than the Neighbourhood Plan.  A
DPD is also in a higher position than an SPD.
Building heights were discussed at length – e.g. 6/7 storey building applications and the
likelihood of these becoming more common.
3. Regen Site Update
Nikal Site
CA updated regarding the Nikal Site, the scoping has finished and there is a full application
approaching.  BF enquired if an update on pre-planning consultations could be of interest to
tenants.  RTG advised that pre-application advice is given in confidence, the designs have
changed radically over the last year and there is nothing to report at this stage.  BF raised the
issue with the Nikal Car Park, which RNLI are using, Nikal are charging. BF felt that this
should be enforced.  It was noted that past experiences of trying to enforce in a similar
situation has resulted in the inspector stating that there is no harm in running a temporary car
park.  RTG advised that the future of the car park is seen as a regen site.  ST added that
once an application has been received, BoP will not be able to enforce the car park.  RTG
advised that if we were to “enforce” it would be more of a gentle reminder of the expiry.
CA suggested a meeting between Poole Quays Forum and the Residents.  It was noted that
this would be a good idea.
4. Planning Website Improvements – Feedback from Community Working Group
SPL gave an overview of the website improvements currently in progress, e.g. making it
easier and more user friendly to browse the website from a smart phone or Ipad.  SPL
requested feedback from the group, which will then be fed back to the team.  ST added that
the  Q-Codes  on  the  site  notices  are  in  operation,  these  can  be  scanned  to  access
information quickly.  It was noted that a QR app needs to be downloaded when using this
facility.  It is a service provision introduced to improve our service.
TS stressed that not everyone surfs the internet.  MT added that some difficulties have been
found in web browsing.  SPL advises that this is part of the BoP’s anticipated improvements
to the website.

 

 

Item Description Action
5. Other Items Raised by CWG Members
5.1   Consultation on Community Involvement – Terence Stewart
The Chairman’s Response to Community Involvement document, which was circulated
by TS prior to the meeting, was discussed.
TS enquired regarding the definition of neighbours next to the site, is BoP taking all
relevant parties into consideration.   ST responded by advising that it is whatever
legislation states, it is either neighbour notification or site notices, BoP is under no
obligation to provide both, however, it currently does.  BoP is required to make savings
and by abolishing neighbour notifications, it will make a saving of £14k per annum.  ST
added that the surrounding areas, including the back of the site, will have site notices.
The weekly lists were discussed in detail.  SPL advised that registering to receive
these can be carried out on the website.  After discussion, it was agreed that SPL
would ask KP to prepare some detailed notes on registering, which could be circulated
with the minutes. TS advised that these he has been receiving the weekly lists.  BF
added that the weekly list is received from Karen Atkins in PDF format, you can click
on search and type in Hamworthy West, everything will appear on screen.
CA enquired if applicant could notify neighbours.   ST advised that the local land
authority holds responsibility and there is no legal requirement for applicants to do this.
MT stressed that BoP needs to take into consideration older people, who make not
necessarily have access to, or even feel comfortable with, using apps on mobile or
Ipad or utilising the internet.

 

5.2     Target Neighbour/Standard Expiry Dates – Graham Whitehall

GW advised that the details section on the planning portal, which sets out the target and expiry dates needs to be investigated, some clarity is needed, as the dates are not clear. It was noted that this is in respect of the tracker bar. RTG advised that this issue will be investigated. SPL added for the record that the deadline for comments is a minimum of 21 days to make any comments, a decision may not necessary have been reached.

 

Action: Planning Website – deadline dates to be investigated by RTG

 

BF advised regarding the Modern Mindset (http://www.moderngov.co.uk/) website, which is a software company specific for Councils. They can incorporate a meeting management system, where these can be recorded. SPL advised she will investigate their website further.

 

Action: SPL to investigate the Modern Mindset website

 

5.3     Gallaghers Site – Chris Allenby

  1. We have lost Gallaghers for the moment on the power station site. Reported to be non viable. ST confirmed and advised that Gallaghers had withdrawn their application, due to not being commercially viable. However, CIL contributions are still relevant and, with the new tariff, this will probably be zero.

 

  1. Is there a defined date for the completion of the Gallaghers section of the port link road? ST advised “no”.

 

  1. Densities – it was noted that the limits are defined by the Strategic Habitats Regulation Assessment carried out, involvement from Natural England was discussed. TS enquired regarding standardisation of densities. RTG advised regarding the Strategic Habitats Regulation Assessments and the issued faced. The reduced bedrooms allowance to accommodate more dwellings was discussed. Open Space allowance per dwelling was also discussed.

 

MT suggested a representation to Gallaghers/Inland Homes in respect of Port Link Road, to get things moving.

  • CWG Efficacy of the Group – Email from Brian Finch

ST advised that an email had been received from BF and read this to the group.

BF responded as follows, in order to clear up any confusion:

“Just to explain my email and the context it was sent in:

I have personally and publically applauded Stephen’s contribution to public engagement and participation, of which Stephen is well aware of.

My email had a point to make which it seems may have been confused.

The point I was making is obvious if you have seen the council’s attitude and real life practice to public consultation and engagement, which I assumed most of you that this was sent to are aware of.

I feel it is only a matter of time till this group suffers the same demise as area committees, and whatever this group produces still has to go through council and cabinet which is a majority tory council.

 

I have sat in many committees since the elections and they are bombastically pushing through motions that have taken years to achieve with councillors with no previous input or experience with local issues or communities. Officers are cock a hoop that most their work gets through now and is not challenged or scrutinized with any degree of sincerity.

This type of policy breeds contempt and that could be mistaken in my email if the author didn’t know the facts which I do.

Stephen knows me well enough by now to know that I have due respect for him, I have no respect for his superiors whatsoever because there is none due or deserved.

I’m making no excuse for my email, I’m explaining the meaning of it, whether you agree with my views or not is not my business, I explain this for the benefit of showing due respect for Stephen which he deserves in bundles.

Thank you”.

After discussion, it was unanimously agreed that the Community Working Group is extremely important and should continue.

 

5.5  Items Raised by Terence Stewart

  1. It is important for the Minutes to be distributed widely and promptly to all Resident and Community Associations. 7 weeks for the Sept. 24 minutes is too long.

ST response: Agreed. Unfortunately, the minutes were delayed due to Officers workload and CPT awaiting approval. It was agreed that approval will be sought from one of ST, SPL or RTG and CPT will have the minutes distributed within two weeks of the meeting.

  1. Please can the Agendas and Minutes continue to be distributed to the previous members of the CWG to keep them informed.

ST advised that the Agenda and Minutes are distributed to current CWG Members for forwarding on to the various groups as appropriate. After a lengthy discussion it was agreed that CPT would add TS to the distribution list to enable him to forward on.

 

Action: CPT to add TS to CWG Distribution List for all future Agenda’s and

Minutes

Conclusions and timings for next steps on the Responses to the Draft Core Strategy and SPD.

ST advised that the responses have been consolidated, following the consultation and comments. The next step is the Strategic Planning and Duty to Co-operate, which ST gave an overview of the options and new plan going forward with reference to the number of residential units BoP are faced with supplying. ST advised regarding the 5-year land supply plan, which needs to be in place to ensure developers refrain from bombarding BoP with spurious planning applications, which they know the inspectorate will grant. This will happen if there is no 5-year land supply plan in place. RTG advised that developers are more than likely to be fully aware of the fact that the demand has increased from 500 to 710 residential units.

  1. Building on the Green Belt.

 

ST gave an overview of the options: 1) – 500 houses per year. 2) Building Density – higher. 3) Expanding into the Countryside/Green Belt. 4) Any Other.

TS enquired if we build denser, would it mean that there would be no need to build in the Green Belt? ST advised that BoP are investigating the issues and we need to consider all options. The density, Green Belt and the quantity of houses this would create was discussed. It was felt that applications for properties with less bedrooms will be received in order to create more residential units but with less density.

TS requested a revised groupings map. RTG/ST advised this is located in the Town Centre SPD. ST – it is very likely that the Town Centre will change drastically over the next 10 years.

MT enquired if it will meet the need? ST advised yes and gave an explanation of the SPD going to ECOS on 01/12/15.

TS enquired if the SPD can be located in the local library. After checking, SPL advised that the documents go to the central library, Democratic Services are responsible for ensuring the documents are there. Note: It was assumed that Committee Minutes would not be distributed to the Libraries due to cost cutting.

  1. Publication of the Seafront Plan to residents ahead of going to Committee.

This matter was discussed at length. ST advised that the SPD had been to Scrutiny four times plus the Workshop. It was noted that there had been changes to the document and ST advised that this was to be publicised in due course, anticipated to be next week but not guaranteed. The document is now in a position where the Members can either adopt or not. The document will need to go to full Council first.

  1. Definition of Areas to receive CIL Levies, Who decides which projects benefit and process if Area Meetings are abolished?

ST advised that the Community Apportionment, which went to Cabinet in November decides the neighbourhood apportionments. Item 3.11 of the Cabinet Report states:

“Through the CIL Neighbourhood Portion Working Party the areas of Poole not covered by Neighbourhood Forums will have their CIL funds managed by this rest of the of the Borough working party (see Appendix B) made up of Councillors with representation from across the Borough. Councillors can put forward their proposals for CIL funded projects in their respective wards and the working party as a whole can decide upon the priority of these projects and where the CIL funds will be allocated. Through discussions with local people and Council Officers it would be the Councillors responsibility to establish what infrastructure needs there are in their ward. Representatives from the

Borough’s Neighbourhood Forums should also form part of the group to ensure that any cross boundary needs between Neighbourhood Forums and Wards can be discussed and resolved where necessary.”

ST advised that it is not known, at this stage, if the Area Meetings will be replaced with another similar meeting. ST confirmed that there is no executive authority at all.

  • Any Other Business

 

  • Notifications

TS requested that notifications are sent to CWG members of when items are going through Council/Cabinet in respect of CIL. It was noted that there are regular Newsletters – see item 6.2.

  • Planning Newsletter

It was noted that the Planning Newsletter, usually prepared and distributed by Policy, had not been received by CWG members for a long period of time. After investigation, it was found that the last two were released in March 2015 and July 2015. CPT will circulate these to the CWG with the minutes. The link to subscribe to receiving the Newsletters is:

https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKPOOLE/subscriber/new

 

Action: CPT will circulate the two Planning Newsletters, for March and July 2015, to the CWG with the minutes.

  • Raising Issues

ST advised that the raising of any issues can be carried out through Pauline Gill in Democratic Services.

  • Printing Documents

SPL advised that the Planning Unit is unable to carry out any documentation printing due to resource and printing issues.

  • Chris Allenby

CA advised that Poole Quays Forum wish to present the PQF Neighbourhood Plan in due course and enquired where this needs to go. ST advised he will investigate and let CA know.

Action: ST/SD to advise CA the process for independent examination.

  • Gerald Rigler

GR raised the matter of Brownfield before Green Belt and enquired if ST is aware of the flawed housing targets, which he then circulated to ST. CPRE challenging the inspectorate. ST advised that he is aware.

Highways, Contamination, Flooding, Building Regulations.

There being no further business the meeting finished at 16:45 hrs.

Date of Next Meeting: The Community Working Group

Wednesday, 23rd March 2016 17:30 hrs – 21:00 hrs   Committee Suite  Civic Centre

Agenda For Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents’ Association Executive Meeting Held On 11th November 2015

BRANKSOME PARK, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (Founded 1958)

@ THE COMMITTEE ROOM (formerly known as THE LOUNGE), REAR OF BRANKSOME ST ALDHELMS PARISH CENTRE (ACCESS VIA LINDSAY ROAD)

WEDNESDAY 11th NOVEMBER 2015 @ 7.30 pm

AGENDA

7.30 pm.

1. Apologies/Accuracy of Minutes (07th October 2015)

2. Matters arising (Not covered under “Review”)

Poole Pottery/Old Orchard/Quay Thistle Hotel etc sites – update

John Sprackling

Planning Enforcement, TPOs/Tree replacements – update

ditto

Community Working Group

ditto

Council Budget Monitoring report (2015/16) & 2016/17 Budget

William Mutlow

Public Rights of Way

Richard Dimbleby etc

Pinecliff Gardens (Sunken garden)

Wayne Hancock

Community Engagement

Terry Stewart

Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm

Roy Pointer

Sustaining Poole’s Seafront (Formerly Seafront Beaches Master Plan DPD) Terry Stewart

Succession planning

John Sprackling

Uniting the Conurbation (UTC)

John Sprackling

Refreshing the Core Strategy and Review of Community Infrastructure

Terry Stewart

Levy (CIL)

Improving Association’s communications

Michael Parohn

Autumn 2015 ‘Pines & Chines’ magazine

John Gunton

Leaning garden wall at (?)25 The Avenue

Cllr May Haines

Branksome Park & plot sizes

Trccy Holmes

8.00 pm.

 

3.

New Housing Development

 Keith Alcroft

4.

Accounts to date

John Sprackling

5.

Date of next meeting

John Sprackling

8.30 pm.

6. Any other business

Any other business should be advised to the Chairman at the meeting. Items raised during the evening may be put on the Agenda for the following month.

Date of next meeting: Wednesday 09 December 2015 at 7.30pm – The Committee Room, Rear of Branksome St Aldhelms Parish Centre (Access via Lindsay Road

To be concluded by ‘Mulled wine & Mince pies’

Dates for your diary:

Agenda for Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents’ Association Executive Meeting Held On 07th October 2015

BRANKSOME PARK, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (Founded 1958)

@ THE COMMITTEE ROOM (formerly known as THE LOUNGE), REAR OF BRANKSOME ST ALDHELMS PARISH CENTRE (ACCESS VIA LINDSAY ROAD)

WEDNESDAY 07th OCTOBER 2015 @ 7.30 pm

PLEASE NOTE CHANGE FROM NORMAL DATE

AGENDA

7.30pm.

1.Apologies/Accuracy of Minutes (09th September 2015)

2.Matters arising (Not covered under “Review”)

Poole Pottery/Old Orchard/Quay Thistle Hotel etc sites – update

John Sprackling

Planning Enforcement, TPOs/Tree replacements – update

ditto

Community Working Group

ditto

Council Budget Monitoring report (2015/16) & 2016/17 Budget

William Mutlow

Public Rights of Way

Richard Dimbleby etc

Pinecliff Gardens (Sunken garden)

Wayne Hancock

Community Engagement

Terry Stewart

Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm

Roy Pointer

Sustaining Poole’s Seafront (Formerly Seafront Beaches Master Plan DPD) Terry Stewart

Succession planning

John Sprackling

Uniting the Conurbation (UTC)

John Sprackling

Refreshing the Core Strategy and Review of Community Infrastructure

Terry Stewart

Levy (CIL)

Improving Association’s communications

Michael Parohn

Autumn 2015 ‘Pines & Chines’ magazine

John Gunton

Leaning garden wall at (?)25 The Avenue

Cllr May Haines

8.00 pm.

3.

New Housing Development

Keith Alcroft

4.

Accounts to date

John Sprackling

5.

Date of next meeting

John Sprackling

8.30 pm.

6. Any other business

Any other business should be advised to the Chairman at the meeting. Items raised during the evening may be put on the Agenda for the following month.

Date of next meeting: Wednesday 11 November 2015 at 7.30pm – The Committee Room, Rear of Branksome St Aldhelms Parish Centre (Access via Lindsay Road

Dates for your diary:

14 October 2015 – Canford Cliffs & Penn Hill Area Committee meeting – Venue to be advised

Branksome Park Residents Association Minutes October 2015

MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
MINUTES OF BRANKSOME PARK, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 07 OCT 2015 AT 7.30PM IN CHOIR VESTRY, ST. ALDHELM’S CHURCH
PRESENT:
Terry Stewart (TS) John Sprackling (JS) Keith Alcroft (KA) Michael Parkin (MP) Carol Parkin (CP) John Gunton (JG)

Cllr Mohan Iyengar (MI)

19 Members/Wardens
President
Chairman
Planning Officer Membership Secretary Secretary/Minutes Secretary Magazine Editor Canford Cliffs Ward Councillor

1. APOLOGIES AND ACCURACY OF MINUTES ACTION

JS welcomed those present, particularly, Cllr Mohan Iyengar.

Apologies: Cllr Mrs May Haines, Ken Sanson (Sandbanks Assn), Stan Alfert &
Wayne Hancock. JS said that it was, with great regret, that he had to inform those
present that Wayne had called to see him the previous week and informed him that,
for personal reasons but coloured by the attitude of certain Western Ave residents to
his involvement in the ’12A’ issue, he wished to step down as the Association’s Vice- JS Chairman with immediate effect.

JS went on to say that he was pleased to report that Wayne had kindly agreed to continue his involvement with the Sunken Garden project and will, also, continue to act as the Association’s representative on the Community Working Group.

Accuracy: JS said would sign the Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting held on 09 SEPTEMBER 2015

2. MATTERSARISING

Poole Pottery/Old Orchard/Quay Thistle Hotel sites update: JS reported.. JS

Quayside (former Dolphin Quays) development – No new developments
Former Poole Pottery & Swan Inn site – ditto
Quay Thistle Hotel site – ditto
Old Orchard House – ditto
Land at West Quay Road – ditto
Planning Enforcement, TPOs/Tree replacements – update: JS Victoria Education Centre (Landscaping to the new entrance) – No new developments

Martello Corner, Martello Road (also known as 83 Canford Cliffs Road) -(Change of use of residential garage to dentists surgery} – Appeal lodged 14/07/15. Date of site visit not yet announced.

TS said that ‘there should be no commercial ventures in the Branksome Park Conservation Area, other than Doctors’ but JS reminded him that the precedent has already been set by the Children’s Nursery at 2 Lindsay Road.

16 Western Avenue (Erection of Single Storey Garden Room) – No new developments

8 Haig Avenue (TPO tree destroyed (EN/14/00707). Appeal against Tree Replacement Notice dismissed by Planning Inspectorate on 25/09/15.

Community Working Group (CWG): The CWG meeting was held on 24 Sept 2015 WH but, in the absence of WH, it will be necessary to await the publication of the Minutes
Saturday 17 October 2015
MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
of the meeting. ACTION
The Council is consulting on the change to its planning neighbour notification arrangements. Consultation on a Draft Revised Statement of Community Involvement document is taking place over a six week period commencing on Friday 2 October 2015 and closing on Friday 13 November 2015. The document can be viewed and downloaded from the Borough of Poole website at: http://www.poole.gov.uk/planning-and-buildings/planning/ldp/statement-of-community- involvement/

Council Budget Monitoring report (2014/15) & 2015/16 Budget – In the absence of WM William Mutlow, JS said that an update on the Medium Term Financial Plan (2016/17
to 2019/20) is being presented Tuesday’s (13/10/15) Cabinet meeting.

Public Rights of Way
Buccleuch Road to Lakeside Road – No new developments RD

Pinecliff Gardens (Sunken garden): In the absence of WH, JS reported that the WH Royal Horticultural Society judge had awarded Level 4 ‘Thriving’. Wayne writes “We
scored 82 points, an improvement on last year’s 77 points, which is great. We need
86 points for ‘Outstanding’, so we are nearly there!

I will be contacting the Council about the mosaics, as it looks as though they are now holding us back.”

Community Engagement: The draft Minutes of the Review of Council Governance TS Arrangements Working Party meeting held on 07 September 2015 have yet to be
posted on the BoP website.

At the last Area Committee meeting on 15 June 2015, it was suggested that the Area Committee boundaries should be reorganised so that Canford Cliffs, Penn Hill & Parkstone were grouped together, as this was a more natural community of interest and Cllr MH said that he said that he could see no reason why this could not be dealt with in isolation,

Cllr MI said that, since the Area Committee meeting, he now has a much broader and deeper understanding of this and cannot guarantee that this will happen.

Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm: Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm: In the RP absence of Roy Pointer, JS said he is not sure if Navitus are lodging an appeal but
believes that this is unlikely.

Sustaining Poole’s Seafront (Formerly Seafront Beaches Master Plan SPD): that TS the report on Sustaining Poole’s Seafront (Formerly Seafront Beaches Master Plan SPD):has been deferred to the Cabinet meeting on 08 December 2015.

The item has been deferred pending further editing to reduce the size of the document. This relates mainly to removal of pictures and some re-wording. It is essentially the same content following the consultation last year. The item has been rescheduled for December Cabinet.

Cllr MH said that the document is being strengthened as well as reduced.

TS said that a formal request has been put in that this should be available for public awareness before the cabinet meeting as there have been a number of changes. Chairman’s note: At the Area Committee meeting, some Councillors present supported the call for the document to be posted on the BoP website in advance of the publication of the Agenda & supporting papers for the December Cabinet meeting on 01 December 2015.

Succession planning: No new developments. JS

Uniting the Conurbation (Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch) – TS reported JS that there have been two alternative proposals put forward. Firstly, Poole,
Saturday 17 October 2015
MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Bournemouth, Christchurch and East Dorset District Councils are considering the ACTION idea combined council with all the subsequent financial savings and, secondly, Dorset
County Council are proposing for one council for the whole of the county.

Peter Viney pointed out that this almost happened in the early seventies but discussions collapsed, entirely due to the fact that nobody could agree on a name.

Refreshing the Core Strategy and review of Community Infrastructure Levy TS (CIL) – TS said that one element of the revised Core Strategy relates to the provision
for Travellers

An analysis for the draft Core Strategy has confirmed that both Poole and Bournemouth have now considered every possibility for both temporary and permanent Traveler sites and neither authority can find suitable sites. The Councils are now depending on a change in the law that may allow authorities such as Poole and Bournemouth to send Travellers to sites in the rural areas, but of course the rural District Councils are opposed to this.

There have been very few problems this year, compared with previous years. The main problem was on Baiter Car park where a number of caravans had encroached. A formal request has been put in that the access to the car park be narrowed making it too narrow for caravans.

Improving association’s communications – MP said he would chase up why MP distribution of The Village magazine had not gone to every residence in the BH13
area as promised.
It was pointed out that there are not letter boxes for every residence and this may have been part of the problem.

3 NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – KA reported

25 Forest Road (Variation of condition 2 of APP/12/01565/F to erect a detached garage for unit 1 and alter parking layout for units 2 & 3 and reduction in 2 spaces for existing nursery) – Letter of objection lodged on behalf of the Association on 24 September 2015.

16 Western Avenue (Erect a single storey garden room (Retrospective) – Letter of objection lodged on behalf of the Association on 24 September 2015.

Peter Viney pointed out the Planning Department had told him that the Acoustic report could not be done until after the last date for objections as ‘the owner is away on holiday’ He went on to say that the owner of the property doesn’t live there.

JS asked Cllr MI to look into this for the Association.

Salterns Marina
Chris Stracey asked if everybody had had a card detailing the proposed development at Salterns Marina. This was distributed to residents in BH12, BH13 and BH14.

TS said that he had lodged a letter of objection on behalf of the Southern Poole Chairmens’ Liaison Group. The proposed two buildings are seven storeys high which will be very visible across Poole Bay, it is a very ugly design, all the proposed flats will only be accessible down one small road which is already overloaded.

Chris Stracey said that his main objection was that he could not see the need for 73 more flats in the area.

12A Western Ave & the 3⁄4 rule: At the request of the Chairman, TS took the chair for this item on the Agenda.
TS pointed out that there are tight legal requirements of producing Local Plans and
KA
Saturday 17 October 2015
MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
the Council has been following these legal requirements in producing multiple documents.

In March 1981, the Conservation Area was created then in November 1981 the Council produced a supplementary planning guidance and in that there was a relevant statement ‘The Bury family divided the estate into large building plots.”

are still in place and are an important factor in shaping the layout and form of the area.

TS went on to say that there is a certain amount of uncertainty as to whether the covenants can be enforced and when an application is approved which breeches the covenant, it is up to the covenant holder to try to enforce those covenants.

JS said that the covenants are still active, and the current owner of the covenants is Stanborough Construction Ltd. However, McCarthy & Stone challenged Stanborough’s claim for £50,000 or so, via the Lands Tribunal, when it built its sheltered housing complex at 14/4A The Avenue, on the grounds that the Covenants had been varied/waived so much over the years that these were, no longer, enforceable. Stanborough did not defend McCarthy & Stone’s claim and this was dismissed by the Lands Tribunal.

In March 2004, the Poole Local Plan First Alteration had two policies – H10 said that plots should not be less than 0.75 of an acre and B23 said that plots should be maintained in the size consistent with the area. Later on, in an alteration, the requirement for those two policies was dropped.

In March 2006, consultation on the Branksome Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan commenced and this was was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in December 2006). This retained those two policies.

In September 2007, there was a new document – the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD).

In May 2008. the next document, replacing the Poole Local Plan, was the Poole Core Strategy and the policies H10, BE23, BE24 in the Poole Local Plan were removed.

Chairman’s note: At the Association’s AGM on14 May 2011, I pointed out that the public consultation on the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) closed on 27 May 2011, and said ‘that there is some concern that policies H10, BE23, BE24 in the Poole Local Plan are being lost and these are not adequately covered by policy PCS 23 in the Poole Core Strategy’.

TS attended the Public Examinations with Planning Inspectors into the Site Specific Allocations and the Core Strategy and, at that time, raised the question of the size of plots, but the Planning Inspector did not ask for these policies to be retained.

Revision of Poole’s Core Strategy is in progress and, although this has been subject to public consultation, so far, nothing has been said about this issue.

This whole matter is complicated and would require detailed investigation into the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

TS then asked those at the meeting with concerns about this issue to tell the meeting about their concerns and what they required the Association to do about them.

One member was concerned about maintaining standards in Branksome Park and did not want to see developments which are unsuitable for the area.

TS advised that a group of those concerned could make formal recommendations to the Planning Department to reinstate these policies, as the Core Strategy is in the process of being revised.
ACTION
Saturday 17 October 2015
MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Secondly, any concerns could be raised, formally, at the forthcoming Canford Cliffs & Penn Hill Area Committee meeting. JS will send the contact for the Area Committee meeting to Nick Holmes, who asked how to have an issue raised on the Agenda. Chairman’s note: Tracy & Nick Holmes attended the meeting, and whilst Cllr MI was supportive, Cllr Peter Pawlowski said that he felt that current policies were adequate.

TS answered Tracy Holmes’ questions about 12A Western Avenue.

John Edwards is concerned that a precedent will be set making it difficult to raise objections in the future.

TS pointed out that a number of plots have been changed in size over the last twenty years in the Conservation Area.

Nick Holmes said that, although plots had already been subdivided. they were still in excess of 0.75 of an acre.

Peter Viney related some history of previous subdivisions of plots where Planning Officers insisted in the plots remaining were more than 0.75 acre and maintained that a precedent would be set with the subdivision of 12A.

TS suggested looking at the document Branksome Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan SPG which refers to policies H10 and B23. These policies are still in the document protecting the Conservation Area.

Nick Holmes raised all the concerns as to why this matter has been dragging on since April 2015. TS suggested a detailed request to Stephen Thorne personally, putting forward all the points he raised, asking for an explanation.

TS suggested putting forward any objections as a ‘community issue’ by way of a petitions. He suggested a meeting with Cllr Peter Pawlowski, who is a Ward Councilor for forward all the points he raised, asking for an explanation.

TS, also, suggested putting forward any objections as a ‘community issue’ by way of petition. He suggested a meeting with Cllr Peter Pawlowski, who is a Ward Councilor for the area and also Chairman of the Planning Committee.

Nick Holmes asks the Association if they would be willing to lend their support to this issue in the form of a financial contribution towards the costs involved. JS said that this is what has been done before and asks Mr. Holmes to put together a list of projected costs and then the Committee would vote on the amount the Assn. would be willing to donate.

Cllr MI agreed to try to find out what exactly is holding things up with this issue. excess of 0.75 of an acre.

Other current planning issues

2 Dalkeith Road (Sever land and construct a detached house with integral garage) – Letter of objection lodged on behalf of the Association on 02 September 2015.

66, 68 & 68A Lilliput Road (Outline planning application for the demolition of the existing properties and the erection of two separate apartment buildings containing 20 flats in total with associated access, cycle and bin stores) – Letter of objection lodged on behalf of the Association on 26 July 2015.

Ormonde Nursing Home, 12 Pinewood Road (Outline application for alterations, extensions and conversion of the building to six flats with associated parking and landscaping) – The Association lodged a letter of objection to this application on 13 August 2015.

Compton Acres, Canford Cliffs Road (Erection of building comprising 20 Apartments with basement parking; re-arrangement for the existing Compton Acres parking area, and demolition of the existing office building set within the current car park) – No new developments
ACTION
Saturday 17 October 2015
MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Autumn 2015 ‘Pines & Chines’ magazine – the magazines for distribution on Friday ACTION this week or early the following week.

Leaning garden wall at (?)25 The Avenue – Cllr MH will follow up.

5. ACCOUNTS TO DATE –

JS said that it was too early for the Treasurer to JS produce his report of the Association’s funds to 30 September 2015 but as at 31
August 2015 the total funds were £33,404.46

6 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Canford Cliffs Village Christmas Lights – JS proposed a donation of £750, as in
previous years, towards the Christmas lights and this was approved. All

Date of next Meeting: Wednesday – 11 November 2015 – Committee Room (formerly Lounge), Rear of Branksome St Aldhelms Parish Centre (Access via Lindsay Road

The meeting closed at 8.40pm..
Saturday 17 October 2015

Agenda For Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents’ Association Executive Meeting Held on 09th September 2015

BRANKSOME PARK, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (Founded 1958)

@ THE COMMITTEE ROOM (formerly known as THE LOUNGE), REAR OF BRANKSOME ST ALDHELMS PARISH CENTRE (ACCESS VIA LINDSAY ROAD)

WEDNESDAY 09th SEPTEMBER 2015 @ 7.30 pm

AGENDA

7.30pm.

1.Apologies/Accuracy of Minutes (12th August 2015)

2.Matters arising (Not covered under “Review”)

Poole Pottery/Old Orchard/Quay Thistle Hotel etc sites – update

John Sprackling

Planning Enforcement, TPOs/Tree replacements – update

ditto

Community Working Group

ditto

Council Budget Monitoring report (2015/16) & 2016/17 Budget

William Mutlow

Public Rights of Way

Richard Dimbleby etc

Pinecliff Gardens (Sunken garden)

Wayne Hancock

Community Engagement

Terry Stewart

Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm

Roy Pointer

Sustaining Poole’s Seafront (Formerly Seafront Beaches Master Plan DPD) Terry Stewart

Succession planning

John Sprackling

Pine Drive

Cllr May Haines

Uniting the Conurbation (UTC)

John Sprackling

Refreshing the Core Strategy and Review of Community Infrastructure

Terry Stewart

Levy (CIL)

Improving Association’s communications

Michael Parohn

Autumn 2015 ‘Pines & Chines’ magazine

John Gunton

Leaning garden wall at (?)25 The Avenue

Cllr May Haines

8.00 pm.

3.

New Housing Development

Keith Alcroft

4.

Accounts to date

John Sprackling

5.

Date of next meeting

John Sprackling

8.30 pm.

6. Any other business

Any other business should be advised to the Chairman at the meeting. Items raised during the evening may be put on the Agenda for the following month.

Date of next meeting: Wednesday 14 October 2015 at 7.30pm – The Committee Room, Rear of Branksome St Aldhelms Parish Centre (Access via Lindsay Road) NB This date may have to be changed as it clashes with Area Committee meeting

Dates for your diary:

14 October 2015 – Canford Cliffs & Penn Hill Area Committee meeting – To be advised 02 September 2015 – Newtown & Parkstone Area Committee meeting – ditto

Minutes Of Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents’ Association for September 2015

MINUTES OF BRANKSOME PARK, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 09 SEPT 2015

AT 7.30PM IN COMMITTEE ROOM, ST. ALDHELM’S PARISH CENTRE

PRESENT:

John Sprackling (JS)

Chairman

Wayne Hancock (WH)

Vice-Chairman

Keith Alcroft (KA)

Planning Officer

John Gunton (JG)

Magazine Editor

Cllr Mrs May Haines (MH)

Canford Cliffs Ward Councillor

19 Members/Wardens

1. APOLOGIES AND ACCURACY OF MINUTES

ACTION

JS welcomed those present, particularly, Cllr Mrs May Haines and those attending for the first time.

Apologies: Terry Stewart, Carol & Mike Parkin

Accuracy: JS said would sign the Minutes as a true and accurate record of the

meeting held on 12 AUGUST 2015, apart from one correction regarding the JS Christmas Lights in Canford Cliffs Village – the lights will be switched on Friday,

27 November, 2015, not 25th as reported in last Minutes

2. MATTERS ARISING

Poole Pottery/Old Orchard/Quay Thistle Hotel sites update: JS reported..

JS

1.Quayside (former Dolphin Quays) development – The Council has received an application for consent to Assign the Lease at Dolphin Quays. The consent to the assignment was offered in April 2015 subject to Licence. The Licence has yet to be completed

2.Former Poole Pottery & Swan Inn site – No new developments

3.Quay Thistle Hotel site – ditto

4.Old Orchard House – ditto

5.Land at West Quay Road – ditto

Planning Enforcement, TPOs/Tree replacements – update:

JS

Victoria Education Centre (Landscaping to the new entrance) No new developments

Martello Corner, Martello Road (also known as 83 Canford Cliffs Road) –(Change of use of residential garage to dentists surgery} – Appeal lodged – Interested Party Comments due 25 Aug 2015 Appellant/LPA Final Comments due 15 September 2015

16 Western Avenue (Erection of Single Storey Garden Room) – The Planning Enforcement Team served a Planning Control Notice on 16 Western Avenue yesterday (08/09/15) to establish current ownership and other parties with an interest in the land. It is understood that a new application should be lodged this week.

Chairman’s note: Application registered on 09/09/15.

8 Haig Avenue (TPO tree destroyed (EN/14/00707). Appeal against Tree Replacement Notice – awaiting outcome of Hearing on 18th August 2015.

Community Working Group (CWG): Meeting fixed for 24 Sept 2015 – the Council

WH

is planning to change its planning neighbour notification arrangements and the CWG

will be informed about this at this meeting.

Wednesday, 09 September 2015

MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Council Budget Monitoring report (2014/15) & 2015/16 Budget – William Mutlow

ACTION

reported on the Council Budget Monitoring report covering the period 1 April 2015 to

WM

30 June 2015 – this forecasts a small surplus of £0.3m for the year 2015/16.

Cost pressures of £0.8m emerging in Children’s Services. Forecast includes higher

placement costs for Looked after children and cost pressures within the Adoption

Service.

Other services are forecasting Net Savings with the most significant being £0.4m

from Transportation, with reduced expenditure from Concessionary Fares and other

Budgets.

Vacancy management and an ongoing brake on expenditure are continuing to apply.

There remains uncertainty regarding a number of significant budgets, and there is no

longer a contingency within the annual budget to manage any unforeseen events.

There are a number of in-year changes to funding currently expected from the

Government’s post election announcements over the summer including the delay of

the implementation of Part 2 of the Care Act until 2020. The main provisions due for

implementation in April 2016 were to introduce a cap on residential care costs paid

by individuals and to significantly increase the capital threshold above which people

are required to contribute to the costs of their care.

The Council has already invested in systems, staffing and other costs funded by

government grants to prepare for implementation. We are awaiting further

announcements and no provision has been made within the current year forecast for

any funds to be returned.

The in year position needs to be seen within the context of the current £5.5m deficit

in the budget for 2016/17, acknowledged by Cabinet on 28 July, and the further

growth pressure expected from Children’s Social Care, the impact of the new Living

Wage on costs in the care sector and the Government cuts under review.

2016 High Season Parking Period should begin on 1st March from 2016 onwards.

Movement on reserves

The balance on earmarked reserves at the 1 April 2015 was £24.2m, with £3.6m

programmed to support the 2015/16 Budget. £2.578m of the expenditure variances

relates to the use of specific earmarked reserves in support of their intended

purpose.

As reported at last month’s meeting of the Association, the 3 year Medium Term

Financial Plan includes the assumption that Council Tax will rise by 2% per year

Reasons for significant Forecast Revenue Variances greater than £100,000

People Theme £512k Total Variances Cost Pressures

£421k Looked After Children: Pressures in residential care costs partially offset by

savings within fostering placements.

£180k Adoption Services: A number of children requiring greater support than

budgeted, together with an increase in other costs due to national changes.

£175k Children in Need & Independent Living: Increase in number of care leavers

requiring support.

£254K ASC – Residential Care & Community Based Services: The number of clients

needing support is over budget on residential care partially offset by savings in

community services and direct payments. Relating to older people the pressure is

£349k, with other age groups saving (£95k).

£287k saving in ASC – Care Act (Part 1) Implementation: Local deferred payment

scheme required few changes to implement the national scheme from April 15. This

had reduced spend from this one off non ring-fenced grant.

£168K saving in ASC – Employee Costs: Vacancies within social work and

commissioning teams.

£68K saving in ASC – Other: Grant announced after the budget was set to support

Wednesday, 09 September 2015

MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

the expected increase in Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DOLS) cases.

ACTION

£5k Other: Net Pressures.

Place Theme Variance a Saving of £557k

£153K saving in Transportation Concessionary Fares. Actual costs were 3.7% lower

in the first 2 months. The forecast assumes the 2014/15 trend of journey numbers in

the remaining 10 months. The actual level of activity is influenced by external factors

such as the weather.

£284k saving in Other Transportation. Savings made up from street lighting

electricity £93k, from additional parking and other income £73k, from expenditure

savings on bus subsidies £47k and from net other costs £71k.

£120k saving in Other Variances made up from Town centre management £45k and

from facilities management £75k.

Business Improvement Theme Variance a Saving of £325k

£159k saving in Human Resources. The main variance is additional income of

£137k.

£166k saving in Other Services. The main items are employee savings from

Corporate Management Team £73k and Corporate Strategy £44k.

Public Rights of Way

RD

Westminster Road end of Dalkeith Road – The sandbags serving to obstruct this

route have been removed by the Council. It, currently, recognises this route as an

unrecorded Public Right of Way.. .

Buccleuch Road to Lakeside Road – No new developments

Bessborough Road – This road is owned by Canford Cliffs Land Society. The

Society is, currently, in conflict with the developers of the former Norfolk Lodge Hotel

regarding access.

Pinecliff Gardens (Sunken garden): WH said that the report of of the Royal

WH

Horticultural Society judge’s visit was expected at the end of this month. Volunteers

are still needed. WH is still waiting to receive from the Council the renewed License

to allow the Association to officially manage the garden.

Community Engagement: Cllr MH reported on the third meeting of the ‘Review of

JS

Council Governance Arrangements Working Party’ which was held on the preceding

Monday (07/09/15). About 12 members of the public were present.

Discussions on changes to the current Overview & Scrutiny Committees have been

concluded.

Area Committees will continue but the Working Party is looking at ways of widening

the scope of these meetings. Other alternatives being considered are Focus

Groups. ‘Themed’ meetings. Consultation is continuing and, at the time of the

Association’s meeting, no date had been set for the next Working Group meeting.

Chairman’s Note: The Minutes of the meetings held on 13 July and 03 August 2015

have still to be posted on the BoP website.

Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm: Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm: Roy

RP

Pointer gave an update on Navitus Bay. The decision will be published by the

Secretary of State this Friday 11 September, exactly 12 months from the opening of

the Examination process in line with the Planning Act 2008. He very much hoped

that the Application would be refused bearing in mind the effort put in by residents in

the wider area and the support of all local Councils (Poole excepted), MPs, National

Trust and the New Forest Parks Authority.

He referred to the recent piece in the Daily Telegraph indicating refusal of the project

but had nothing on which to base the article although Emily Gosden is a respected

journalist in the sector.

If the project is approved there is limited scope to challenge. The route is via Judicial

ACTION

Review but the grounds are very limited e.g. Law, process compliance and

reasonabl ness of the decision but not the merits of the case e.g., visual intrusion,

Wednesday, 09 September 2015

PCBA will look at the process if an adverse decision is given.

noise etc.MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Chairman’s Note: RP writes “I’m delighted to say that on 11th September, Secretary

of State Amber Rudd issued the decision refusing permission for the wind farm as

well as a smaller option proposed at the eleventh hour by the developer. This

represents a major achievement for the thousands of residents who objected, and

for the work of Poole and Christchurch Bays’ Association in giving focus and weight

to the planning arguments against this deeply unpopular proposal. It is a good

example of how residents can influence decisions on national issues working

with MPs, local councils and other interested groups.”

Sustaining Poole’s Seafront (Formerly Seafront Beaches Master Plan SPD): A

TS

report is due to be presented to Cabinet at its meeting on 13 October 2015 seeking

resolution to adopt the Plan at the Full Council meeting on 17 November 2015.

Cllr MH was unable to shed any light on this but said that there had been three

rounds of consultation on this. We shall have to wait and see what the report comes

up with.

Chairman’s Note: The report should be posted on the BoP website around 06

October.

Succession planning: No new developments.

JS

Pine Drive – It has been established that Pine Drive is a recognised Right of Way

No

from Chester Road leading all the way to Leicester Rd/Penn Hill junction..

further

action

Uniting the Conurbation (Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch) – No new

JS

developments

Chairman’s Note: It has been announced that Bournemouth, Christchurch, East

Dorset and Poole are jointly exploring the possibility of a single, brand new Council

to cover their respective geographic areas. This would see all functions undertaken

by the existing councils in these areas being delivered by a new single unitary

authority.

Andrew Flockhart is to be recommended to take over as Poole’s Chief

Executive at the Full Council meeting on 29 September.

Refreshing the Core Strategy and review of Community Infrastructure Levy

TS

(CIL) – A summary of responses to Draft Core Strategy, has just published and a

report is available via – http://www.poole.gov.uk/planning-and-

buildings/planning/ldp/core-strategy-review/

A report on the revised CIL proposals will be published as part of a report due to be

presented at the Economy and Overview Committee on 5 November, where the

Council will be seeking endorsement to publish the draft version of the charging

schedule for formal comment before submission to the Secretary of State for

Examination. The Council plans to publish it for 8 weeks over December 2015 to

January 2016, which is two weeks longer than normal to account for the holiday

season.

Improving association’s communicationsIn the absence of MP, JS reported

MP

that the new ‘Canford Cliffs Village’ magazine, which is currently being distributed

throughout BH13 and part of BH14, includes a page about the Association and a

page about the Sunken Garden.

3 NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

KA reported

KA

27 Forest Road (Demolish existing house and erect 5 houses with associated

parking) – Letter of objection lodged on behalf of the Association on 24 August 2015

but application granted on 01 September 2015.

2 Dalkeith Road (Sever land and construct a detached house with integral garage)

Wednesday, 09 September 2015

MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

– Letter of objection lodged on behalf of the Association on 02 September 2015.

ACTION

Chris Stracey raised concerns about the inconsistency of approach by the Local

Planning Authority in the case the various applications at Avalon, off Sandbanks

Road when compared with recent applications in Crawshaw Road. In both cases,

the applications involved sub-division of plots where trees were an issue. In the

case of Crawshaw Road the applications were allowed but in the case of Avalon,

the applications were refused

Cllr MH said that in the case of 14-16 Avalon, the proposed properties were taller

than those there at present, did not fit in with the character of the area and not

enough amenity space.

JS suggested that CS ask WH to take this up at the forthcoming Community

Working Group meeting.

Then followed a lengthy and, at times, heated discussion about 12A Western

 

 

Avenue (Erection of new single storey house) – Application registered 20 April 2015.

Tracy Holmes opened the discussion by saying that she was confused by the

process and sought answers to the following questions

1.Plot size precedent, as there will be two dwellings on a single plot of less than 1½ acres

In the view of the Association, this is not a plot severance and, if it ever existed, the 3/4 acre rule no longer applies. Members were informed of this in the Autumn 2014 magazine. JS said that, as far as he was aware, the only reference to the 3/4 rule is included in the Covenants held by (The) Branksome Park Association Ltd and Covenants are not a planning issue.

2.The reason why no objection was raised to this proposal

The proposal was viewed from a planning point of view. The existing Grade ii listed one bedroom bungalow cannot be altered. Thereby precluding any extensions. A replica style bungalow matching the existing & grouped together would be a unique asset to Branksome Park. It would not compromise policy PCS23 in Poole’s Core Strategy.

It would not breach the Branksome Park Management Plan as the proposed bungalow would be well masked from Western Ave – the additional planting proposed to the boundary would mask the flat roof bungalow from the adjoining properties.

The bungalow would sit on the disused Tennis Court & not compromise any trees or roots

3. The wider community were unaware of this proposal & plans to safeguard the community from similar requests

Because of the limited number of members who take an ‘active‘ role in the work of the Association, it has been the Association’s practice for some years now to adopt are-active approach to planning applications rather than pro-active and we rely on residents contacting us when they are concerned about planning applications.

JS said that, in his experience, it is important that, where a resident is concerned about a neighbouring development to, immediately, ‘lobby’ his/her neighbours to garner support for his/her objections.

JS invited those present to contact him for a copy of the List of the Planning

Applications which he receives for the Council on a weekly basis.

Chairman’s note: Only one request received to date.

4. Misinformation about the plot size of 8 Withingham Road

JS explained that explained how he came to make a mistake about the plot size of this property, which had been subject to sub-division, following the purchase of

adjacent land from the Victoria Education Centre.

Wednesday, 09 September 2015

MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Peter Jackson made the point that both the Council’s Urban Design & Conservation

ACTION

Officer and Tree Officer had raised concerns about the proposal.

Stuart Rhys-Williams felt that the Association had ‘missed the boat’ and was allowing

the character of Branksome Park to be changed. He proposed that an Extraordinary

General Meeting of the Association should be held as soon as possible to rally

support for the re-introduction of the ¾ acre rule.

John Buckley supported this proposal and JS promised to send those members

calling for an EGM, a copy of the Rules of the Association.

Cllr MH said that the officer was due to make his decision the following week and, if

the application is due to be approved, this will be ‘Red-carded’.

Christine Norman questioned how the plot is, currently, registered with the Land

Registry and if it was known if there was any proposal by the owner to register the

two plots separately.

Stan Alfert encouraged those present who had not yet sent letters of objection to do

so as a matter of urgency and suggested they search the BoP Planning Application

website for suitable wording.

John Gunton that, in view of the apparent level of opposition to this proposal, he was

expecting more Western Ave residents to attend the meeting.

Roy Pointer felt that it was up to residents to object and garner support from

residents and thought it unfair to ‘have a go’ at the Executive.

Peter Jackson proposed that a letter of objection should be sent on behalf of the

Association, seconded by Stan Alfert, and this was, overwhelming, agreed by those

present with two abstentions.

Tony Holmes said, in conclusion, that if the application is not turned down, he will not

let the matter rest. Mr Horden has been given permission on three occasions to

extend his current property.

Stan Alfert referred to 2 Dalkeith Road (Sever land and construct a detached house

with integral garage). This was a first application to propose a sub-division in

Buccleugh Road and should be opposed.

Other current planning issues

66, 68 & 68A Lilliput Road (Outline planning application for the demolition of the existing properties and the erection of two separate apartment buildings containing 20 flats in total with associated access, cycle and bin stores) – Letter of objection lodged on behalf of the Association on 26 July 2015.

Ormonde Nursing Home, 12 Pinewood Road (Outline application for alterations, extensions and conversion of the building to six flats with associated parking and landscaping) – The Association lodged a letter of objection to this application on 13 August 2015.

Wateridge House, 5 Burton Road (Outline application to demolish the existing building and erection of 5 no. 2 ½ storey detached houses) – Application recommended for Refusal by Planning Committee at its meeting the following day..Chairman’s note: This application was refused.

Compton Acres, Canford Cliffs Road (Erection of building comprising 20 Apartments with basement parking; re-arrangement for the existing Compton Acres parking area, and demolition of the existing office building set within the current car park) – The developers have yet to comply with Condition 12 and it is noted that there appears to be no provision for coach parking.

Wednesday, 09 September 2015

2015 ‘Pines & Chines’ magazine – This is in the process of being

ACTION

Autumn MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

compiled and will be delivered to all members during October

Leaning garden wall at (?)25 The Avenue – Cllr MH will follow up.

5.

ACCOUNTS TO DATE – JS said the figures for the Association’s funds as at

JS

31st August 2015 were not yet available.

6ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Date of next Meeting: The date of the next meeting clashes with the Canford Cliffs

& Penn Hill Area Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday – 14th October 2015, All so the Association’s next meeting will be held on 07 October 2015 at Committee

Room (formerly Lounge), Rear of Branksome St Aldhelms Parish Centre (Access via Lindsay Road)

The meeting closed at 9.00pm