Branksome Park Canford Cliffs & District Residents’ Association
For monthly meeting 9th November 2016 at 7.30p.m. in the Lounge, rear of St. Aldhelm’s Parish Church (access via Lindsay Road)
1 Welcome and Apologies.
2 Minutes of meeting 12 October 2016.
3 Matters arising.
4 On Road Parking Charges, latest update.
5 The new Magazine.
6 Planning issues.
7 Resident Parking Scheme.
The next meeting will be on the 14th December 2016
Pines And Chines
• About us
• Recent news
• Committee members
• Meetings, minutes,agendas
Minutes of monthly meeting held Wednesday October 12, 2016 at 19.30
PRESENT Bob Reid Chairman
Roger Allen Vice Chairman
Carol Parkin Secretary/Minutes Secretary
Mike Parkin Membership Secretary
Terry Stewart President
Tracy Holmes Planning Officer
Approximately 30 wardens and members.
APOLOGIES Cllr May Haines, Cllr Mohan Iyengar,
Stan Alfert, Chris Stracey, Neil Denning, Dawn Goodson.
Peter and Patricia Osborne, Judy and Alan White, Mary Parsons
Sarah Holt, Irene Ashton, Paul Fearnley, John Gunton.
The Chairman extended a welcome to those present.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2016 MEETING
The minutes of the meeting held in September were accepted as a correct record.
BR gave an update on the licence for the beach volley ball event, which he said should have been ‘Beach sports’ event. On the previous minutes.
He went on to say that the minutes of the Licensing Committee have now been posted on-line.
The Licensing Committee have passed this, but have changed the ending time from 1.00am to 11.00pm.
John Sprackling said that he had asked Frank Wenzel why the report marked ‘confidential’ was not on the website, and why it was marked ‘confidential’. He has now asked the Committee clerk why the report is marked ‘confidential’ and he is still awaiting a reply. JS feels that the Council keep too many things close to their chest.
ON ROAD PARKING METERS
Our Steering Group is still following this very closely. Roy Pointer reported that they are still waiting for the Council to come back with a revision to their answer to our freedom of information request.
14 Pinewood Road. The Association sent in an objection to this planning application to change the building into a House of Multiple Occupancy. This is already being run as an HMO even though planning has not been granted. The Chairman said that he had had a meeting with Stephen Thorne Head of Planning and Regeneration and was told that a decision would be made in a week. Cllr MH red-carded this application but will not be able to speak at the meeting as she is out of the country. She has delegated a substitute. Irene Ashton of the Association who lives behind the proposed HMO will also speak if possible. There was some discussion amongst the members about this Application; mainly on the length of time this has been able to operate as an HMO without Planning Approval, and therefore criticism of the Planning Department. Mr. Stuart Sherring asked ‘what is the future intention’, as there are several Planning Applications to be considered.
The Chairman answered that Stephen Thorne’s position is that every Planning Application has to be considered, however inappropriate it might be. Therefore if this Application is refused the owners will then proceed with the other application. RA suggested a straight forward letter and question to the Council – ‘Who would be liable if there were an accident or a fire?’ TS suggested a formal letter copied to our Councillors setting out the facts. BR said that that was why he had the meeting with Stephen Thorne, but he hadn’t asked a question about liability. BR said that he would do another letter. Martin Heath pointed out that the eight week statutory period can be extended and that BR should also ask what reason it was extended in this case.
8 Martello Road South
Martin Heath has requested that this Application be red carded. He would like to question whether flats can be approved at this address as it is an area of low housing density.
22 Balcombe Road or 2 Burton Road
‘Erect Two Storey Dwelling in the Grounds’
JS told the meeting that there was already Planning Permission to convert this large house into two, and the owner has now asked for permission to retain this as one house and build a further house to be built in the garden. This is in the Conservation Area and it infringes the criteria of low density housing. Tracy Holmes said that the Planning Department are looking at this favourably as it will have no impact on the character of the area.
1 Beaumont Road
This is where trees were ring barked. John Sprackling reported that 12 people went to the Judicial Review in London to support Alex Roden. Alex did a splendid job of representing herself in front of the judge.
This was a review of the Planning Inspector’s decision to allow three houses when the local council had refused it. Even though the tree report was flawed, the Inspector allowed it. There will be a written judgement in a few weeks.
The Application is now for three houses; one house facing one road and two facing the other road.
JS said that the Canford Cliffs Land Society (CCLS) hope that the decision is to hand before the eight weeks period for the Planning Application.
14 Chester Road
This Application has been turned down. This is now being appealed.
5-7 Chaddesley Glen
The Application for two apartment buildings has now been approved.
There are several applications. The first was for two dwellings. This was turned down.
There was then an application for one dwelling which was approved.
There is now another application for two dwellings.
29 Brudenell Avenue
The Application is to demolish the existing dwelling and erect two new ones. This application has only just come in.
66 Lillyput Road
The application for twenty apartments has been granted.
6 Tower Road
The application to convert the gatehouse to separate accommodation has been refused.
46-48 Tower Road
McCarthy Stone have had pre-consultations about their plans for this address and subsequently a display at the front of St. Aldhem’s Church. BR left a copy of McCarthy Stone’s poster for members at the meeting to see if they wished. This plan is for 28 retirement flats and the design looks as if it will be sympathetic to neighbouring properties.
RESIDENTS’ PARKING SCHEME
BR and RA had a meeting with Steve Dean from the Council to see what exactly the Council intends to do about extending the residents’ parking scheme down Chester Road, Eaton Road and Ormonde Road.
Mr. Dean gave the facts so far. When this scheme was first set up the residents were asked if they wanted to join it. At that time those in those in Chester, Ormonde and EatonRoads didn’t. Some four years later a further review showed that those in Ormonde Road did wish to join, but the others still did not. At the current time the Council has no plans to have residents’ parking schemes anywhere.
The current problem is that employees of LV use these roads for parking as their own car park is not sufficient. BR suggested using the Beach Road car park and providing a Park and Ride scheme.
Mr. Dean is going to look at this suggestion.
RA said that we have a situation now where the Council will not indulge in something costly if it doesn’t fit in with current policies, and extending the Residents’ Parking Scheme does not.
The CEO at LV has submitted a letter saying that his workers are doing nothing illegal by parking on these roads which do not have residents parking, and the demonstrations against them are therefore illegal.
BR suggested that the residents of Chester Road approach their Councillors, as we in the Association have done all that we can. Mr. Dean will write to LV suggesting that they consider using the Beach Road car park for a Park and Ride scheme.
In reply to a comment from Mike Wrigley RR read out the results of a Transportation Advisory Group report from 2003 to determine residents’ wishes to extend the scheme.
In Ormonde Road there were 11 responses, in Eaton Road there were 7 and in Chester Road there were 18. In Ormonde Road 9 of the responses were ‘yes’ and 2 were ‘no’, in Eaton Road three responses were ‘yes’ and 4 were ‘no’ and in Chester Road, 3 responses were ‘yes’ and 15 were ‘no’.
It was pointed out that traffic on the road and employees at LV had increased dramatically since then. RA re-iterated that the facts are that the policies of the Council that were in place when Zone K was created no longer exist, and the only recourse left is to approach the Ward Councillors to ask them if they would table a notice of motion in the council chamber to re-instate this policy. This of course would have to be supported by the rest of the Councillors.
After more comments from the residents of Chester Road, RA said that the Association has spent a lot of time on this question, we have had meetings and established the simple facts that the policy the residents would like to still be in place is no longer there and he feels that the Association can do no more on this.
ACCOUNTS TO DATE
The current balance is £30,201. Copies are available should anyone wish to see the details.
In this amount is the expenditure on the Magazine which was £2,449 which was for this colour edition.
RA reported that there was an additional £1500 of advertising in this Autumn Magazine, and he hopes to maintain this in the Spring edition. He passed around a copy of the magazine and pointed out that he and John Gunton had negotiated a price for the printing of this colour edition at no extra cost to that we paid previously for the black and white edition.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
TS reported on the Community Working Group (CWG). Wearing his CPRE (Campaign for the Protection of Rural England) hat TS asked a number of questions. He said that as a borough we are facing a serious housing problem. The borough needs to build a further 14000 homes, and in TS’s opinion there is just not the room. In order to meet this requirement of 14000 homes the Council
Wish to build higher in the centre of Poole to create a greater density of homes and build a further 5000 homes on our green belt. Government policy is not to build on the green belt and if the Council wishes to do so they must show exceptional circumstances why this policy must be breached.
He feels that the Council’s Core Strategy which says buildings in the centre of Poole along the river should be no higher than six storeys is being ignored. It appears that the Core Strategy is being pushed aside.
There are intentions to build a town of 2500 home at Canford Magna. This would be a breach of the Green Belt conditions.
JS commented that the LPA (Local Planning Authority) have had very little time in which to produce these plans, and if we don’t produce a plan that is acceptable to the Planning Inspectorate Poole will have no say in what is built here. TS agrees with this but says that there must be the support of the local people that the green belt is built on. BR said that Stephen Thorne had told him that the Council had to look at where they could possibly build something, and when Canford Magna Golf Club closed and land is available for building, the Council have to look at this and show the Government that this has been considered. There could then be many reasons that building does not take place here and if it does not, the green belt here is even more protected as it would not be considered for building again.
RA feels that the design of the building is of extreme importance, whether it is 4, 6 or 8 storeys high.
A borough can either be expanding or contracting. Poole must remain attractive to new ventures by expanding, not trying to stop things. TS pointed out that CPRE is not trying to stop things, but modify them to fit in with local and Government policy.
BR pointed out that the number of new homes has been forced onto Poole Council and they must show where it is possible to build. If the green belt is not to be touched, there appears to be only one other place, and buildings must be higher. Roy Pointer said that brownfield sites must be considered as presently they are not. TS feels that the problems with housing all across the country is partly caused by developers refusing to build on brownfield sites.
William Mutlow pointed out that Poole has no register of the number of sites that have planning permission in perpetuity that are sitting empty. RA asked that William e mail him examples of these as he does not believe planning permission can be given ‘in perpetuity’ but expire in three years.
Roy Pointer told the meeting that we are now owners of a projection screen. CP asked if we had insurance for this and Roy said that it was ’work in progress’.
Wayne Hancock asked if the Association could contribute a small sum – say £100 – towards an evening out to which Wayne would like to treat his volunteers at Pinecliff Gardens, to thank them for all their hard work over the years. The garden was recently awarded ‘Outstanding’ by the RHS.
RA said that this needed to be discussed by the committee even though a majority of the committee members present at the meeting agreed. RA asked WH how many volunteers he had.
He replied that it would be about 10 or 12, and RA asked if the names of the volunteers could be given to the committee.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will be on Wednesday November 9, 2016, at 7.30pm in the lounge at St. Aldhem’s Parish Centre.
The meeting closed at 8.45pm.
To learn more about the Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs and District Residents Association please see the pines and chines site http://www.pinesandchines.co.uk