Category Archives: Branksome Park

Proposal to extend On-street ‘Pay and Display’ parking to roads near the beaches – BPCCRA

Posted on by

 

Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents’ Association (Established 1958)

 

       Please reply to 23 Lindsay Road,

Branksome Park,

Poole BH13 6AN

Tel No. 01202 751553

 E-mail: johnsprackling@gmail.com

25 February 2016

Dear Member

Proposal to extend On-street ‘Pay and Display’ parking to roads near the beaches

At its meeting on 10 February 2016, the Association discussed, at length, the Council’s proposed scheme to extend On-street parking on a ‘Pay and Display’ basis (P&D) to roads in areas close to the beach in Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & Sandbanks and those present were overwhelmingly opposed to these proposals.

We now seek your support to help show the Council that the plans are a bad idea for residents, visitors to Poole and its beaches, and the local economy.

We are asking you to take action to stop this plan:

  1. Write to the Corporate Research Team, FREEPOST RTKK-CCEE-CXUA, Borough of Poole, Civic Centre, Poole BH15 2RU (This is the Freepost address for returning questionnaires that can be obtained by calling 01202 634240) or email research@poole.gov.uk and head this ‘Extending on street parking scheme in beach areas’. Please state your objections in your own words, brief and to the point, to demonstrate your strength of feeling. A number of suggested reasons for objection are set out at the foot of this note.
  2. Complete the Council’s on-line Questionnaire to reinforce your objections

http://www.poole.gov.uk/your-council/haveyoursay/consultation/planned-consultations/onstreetbeachparking/

  1. Attend our Public Meeting on Saturday, 12 March at 10.30am in All Saints Branksome Park Church Hall. We hope that Julian McLaughlin, Head of Transportation Services will be present to present the Council’s case, together with our three Ward Councillors. There will be an opportunity to get your point across to the Council and ask the question you need answering.
  2. Visit one of the Council’s drop-in sessions shown below:
Location Date Time
Cattistock Room, Civic Centre Monday 29 February 1pm – 6.30pm
Haven Hotel Friday 11 March 1pm – 7pm
Hamworthy Library Wednesday 23 March 1pm – 6.30pm
Committee Suite, Civic Centre Tuesday 5 April 1pm – 6.30p

Some of the main reasons for our objections include:

  1. The Council bases its argument for the P&D scheme on the recently published Sustaining Poole’s Seafront Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which has aspirations for increased year-round visitor numbers. The SPD has a 25 year time-frame whereas the Council intends to implement the scheme this summer. Car parking provision should be provided as required by need over this 25 year time-frame.
  2. The SPD says that ‘The Beach Road car park is an important high season car park but has plenty of spare capacity. Provision for new housing could be accommodated but retention of half the existing parking area, as public car parking, is needed. Loss of the remaining spaces will be mitigated elsewhere by making efficient use of existing car parks.’

 

We should be maximising the use of our existing car parks.

  1. There is clear under-utilisation of existing car parks that are poorly signposted and are not widely known by visitors, e.g Beach Road, Western Road and Branksome Dene Chine’. A first step should be better signage followed by a monitoring of the effect on car park utilisation.
  2. No evidence, such as from traffic surveys, has been presented to show where traffic congestion occurs and how the P&D scheme would prevent congestion.
  3. The only serious congestion noted in the SPD is that “on a sunny day in the school holidays, long queues can form, especially at Sandbanks”. Queues have apparently been exacerbated along Banks Road due to the removal of the car park ‘queuing lane’ and replacing it with a cycle lane.
  4. The confidential Strategic Car parking Review 2011 – 2013 did not show a need for more Beach car park capacity up to 2026 according to Council Committee minutes.
  5. The proposal would generate a ‘wave’ effect along the roads when drivers search for ‘free parking’ beyond the P&D zones creating unnecessary traffic movements.’
  6. Many residents who live in the targeted roads rely on on-street parking for their visitors. The problem of paying for visitor parking is likely to get worse since the Council is allowing flats to be built with inadequate on-site surface parking for visitors. (e.g. The 17 flats being built on the Norfolk Lodge site at 1 Flaghead Road have just 18 basement parking spaces and only one surface space which has to double as both a disabled space and a visitor space).’
  7. No economic analysis is available to explore the overall impact of changes in visitor numbers as car parking becomes a new ‘visit expense’

 

John Sprackling

Chairman

Agenda for Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents’ Association – Feb 2016

Posted on by

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 10 FEBRUARY 2016 @ 7.30 pm AGENDA

7.30 pm.  
1. Apologies/Accuracy of Minutes (13 January 2016)  
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
Sustaining Poole’s Seafront (Formerly Seafront Beaches Master Plan DPD) ditto
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 Parkin
Leaning garden wall at (?)25 The Avenue Roy Pointer
Branksome Park & plot sizes Tracy Holmes
Projection equipment for Canford Cliffs Village Hall Roy Pointer
Proposal to introduce on-street charges on roads adjacent to beaches John Sprackling
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.

  1. 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 10 March 2016 at 7.30pm – The Committee Room, Rear of Branksome St Aldhelms Parish Centre (Access via Lindsay Road

Dates for your diary:

24 Feb 16 Cancelled – Canford Cliffs and Penn Hill Area Committee

Neighbourhood Watch Newsletter of Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & Sandbanks for February 2016

Posted on by

Neighbourhood Watch Newsletter

Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & Sandbanks
Newsletter Editor - Pat Halliday tel. 01202 700911
Distribution Manager - Peter Waldron tel. 01202 708495

Watch Annual General Meeting – Saturday 13th February

Canford Cliffs Village Hall, Ravine Road BH3 7HT 10.30am – 12noon

All residents in our Watch area are invited to this popular FREE annual Neighbourhood Watch event.

The guest speaker will be the Police & Crime Commissioner for Dorset, Martyn Underhill. Our local Neighbourhood Policing Team will attend, but this is always subject to other priorities. You are invited to stay on afterwards to meet the speaker, talk with the Police officers about local safety and security matters and speak to active members of Neighbourhood Watch. This is an opportunity to meet like minded residents over a free glass of wine or soft drink & nibbles and speak to your Neighbourhood Watch Area Co-ordinators and other active Watch members.

Please arrive in good time to be seated and ready for a prompt start at 10.30am

Admission FREE— Everyone welcome

New Year message from Neighbourhood Watch

The mid-Winter festivities are over, and we have welcomed the New Year. The evenings are still long and dark and whilst it is cold and very damp outside this can be the time to check when the annual service is due for the house alarm, and when insurance policies are due for renewal. More importantly, you should also review insurance policies annually. Check that values are up to date. Remove any items sold or thrown away and add any new valuables whether

Christmas gifts or purchases over recent months. Record serial numbers and take photographs (with a ruler or tape measure in the frame) and attach to the receipt. Keep these in a safe, fireproof box or metal filing cabinet.

Dorset Fire & Rescue Service offer free home safety checks. They fit smoke alarms and give free home safety advice. See their website for eligibility and book your appointment online www.dorsetfire.gov.uk or phone 0800 038 2323 for details (free of charge on mobiles & landlines).

Throughout the year Dorset Police hold free bike tagging sessions at local venues. See the Dorset Police website for dates when this is available or contact our Neighbourhood Policing officers for details.

Wishing you a very safe and happy New Year.

 

Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT)

PS 1317 Ray Willmore

PC 2431 Sian Coombs, PC 2685 Aimee Garner

PCSO 5680 Linda Wilson, PCSO 6939 Chris Hardy

Follow them on TWITTER @SandbanksPolice

NPT Contact Details

Police non-emergency telephone number 101

E-mail: pp&c.snt@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dorset Police website www.dorset.police.uk

Danger to life or crime in progress 999

How to contact Dorset Police

If your call is an emergency, i.e. a threat to life, or if a crime is in progress, always call 999 – don’t tweet or send a Facebook update. PHONE!!

For all routine or non- emergency matters, send an email to: enquires@dorset.pnn.police.uk or call 101

Crime in our area

During December, there were no house burglaries in our Watch area, but thefts of high value bicycles stored in sheds and garages have increased across Poole. Thefts from motor vehicles have also in-creased. Leave nothing on display, remove all valu-ables and always lock the vehicle even if it is parked off the road in a garage or on the drive.

See full crime figures online at www.police.uk

Dorset Alert – community messaging

Register with ‘Dorset Alert’ to receive regular infor-mation and updates from Dorset Police on criminal activity in your area. For more information contact the Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT) details above or log on to www.dorsetalert.co.uk

Watch Information Centre

Meet a member of Neighbourhood Watch at the Canford Cliffs Library on the first Friday of every month 10.30am-12noon. Speak to them about any issues or concerns about local safety.

A Police officer always attends and you can ask for advice on home security.

There is a small stock of safety & security items.

Flashing armbands for pedestrians and cyclists are free of charge. They help you to be seen in dark morning and evenings. Also suitable for children and dog walkers wearing dark clothing.

Recently car a registration plate was stolen from a vehicle in Penn Hill. Car registration number plate security screw kits are available for £1.50 from the Information Centre.

Pick-up free Watch window stickers.

Click Here to Download the Newsletter

NWNL-1601

Minutes of Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents’ Association – Jan 2016

Posted on by

MINUTES OF BRANKSOME PARK, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 13 JAN 2016

AT 7.30PM IN CHOIR VESTRY, ST. ALDHELM’S CHURCH

PRESENT:       John Sprackling (JS)                 Chairman

 

Keith Alcroft (KA)                      Planning Officer

 

10 Members/Wardens

 

1. APOLOGIES AND ACCURACY OF MINUTES ACTION  
JS welcomed those present.    
Apologies: Cllrs May Haines & Mohan Iyengar, John Gunton, Carol & Mike Parkin,    
Stan Alfert, Martin Heath & Tracy Holmes.    
Accuracy: JS said that he would sign the Minutes as a true and accurate record of JS  
the meeting held on 09 DECEMBER 2015  
2. MATTERS ARISING    
Poole Pottery/Old Orchard/Quay Thistle Hotel sites update: JS reported.. JS  

 

  1. Quayside (former Dolphin Quays) development – No new developments
  2. Former Poole Pottery & Swan Inn site – ditto
  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 14/07/15. Site visit took place on 11 January 2016.

 

Community Working Group (CWG): The Minutes of the CWG meeting held on 25 WH    
November 2015 will be distributed with the Minutes of this meeting. The next      
meeting will be the AGM on 23 March 2016      
Council Budget Monitoring report (2015/16) – JS said that the Council Budget WM    
Monitoring report (1 April 2015 to 31 December 2015), Medium Term Financial Plan      
report and the report on the Council Tax for recommendation to Council is due to be      
presented at the next Cabinet meeting on 09 February 2016.      
William Mutlow expressed concern that the there was never any mention of the      
Council’s contribution to the Local Government Pension Scheme which currently runs      
at 13.6% of the Council’s payroll bill, whereas within the EU, the figure is 10%.      
Roy Pointer expressed the view that there must come a time when Local      
Government Pension Scheme will become unsustainable and employees will have to      
join a defined contribution scheme which now applies to most employees in the      
Private Sector.      
Public Rights of Way RD    
Buccleuch Road to Lakeside Road – No new developments.    
Karol Gorny reported that he is in touch with Rights of Way officer about establishing      
another Right of Way within the area covered by the Association. He is currently      
 

 

 

 

 

Pinecliff Gardens (Sunken garden): No new developments.

 ACTION  
Community Engagement: JS said he and other Residents’ Association WH  
JS  
representatives will be attending a Meeting with representatives from Residents’  
Association and Commerce and Industry on 15 January 2016 about next years      
Budget.      
The Minutes of last month’s ‘pilot’ Community Themed meeting will be distributed      
with the Minutes of this meeting.      
Sustaining Poole’s Seafront Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)      
(Formerly Seafront Beaches Master Plan SPD): The Sustaining Poole’s Seafront      
SPD was adopted by the Full Council its meeting on 15 December 2015..      
The final adopted version of the SPD has yet to be posted on the BoP website.      
JS said that the Cabinet Forward Plan shows that a report on the proposals for the      
Beach Road car park is due to be presented at the Cabinet meeting on 12 April      
2016..      
Tony Beale said that he had visited the archive section of the Waterfront Museum but JS/TB  
had struggled to find any useful information about the dedication of the land for the      
Beach Road car park. JS said that he would provide names and contact details of      
persons who may be able to assist with his enquiries.      
Roy Pointer said that he would contact the Meyrick Estates which were very helpful      
when he was dealing with the Navitas Bay issue.      
RP was concerned about the lack of signage directing visitors to the Beach Road car      
park – the Association had raised this with the Council on many occasions in the      
past.      
Tony Beale added that this has been closed for public use since before Christmas      
and is, currently, closed.      
JS reported that he had met Mr Montgomery of Tanner & Tilley earlier in the week      
and was told that new plans have been drawn up for a much reduced version of the      
Sports Stadium at Sandbanks and these are likely to be submitted shortly.      
JS added that one of contacts wrote to him last week “I spent quite a long time      
studying the two versions of the SPD and it looked rather to me like the 2013 version      
would have meant Mr Mitchell had no chance of getting permission, whereas the      
2015 version gives him every chance of getting permission.”      
Succession planning: JS said that the Association’s Advertising Manager had been JS  
in touch earlier in the week to say that it was necessary for her to step down as,      
owing to domestic circumstances, she would, no longer, able to fulfil this role. Roger      
Allen, the former Association’s Advertising Manager, has kindly agreed to take her      
place, at least, for the next two editions. JS advised those present that some of the      
Executive were due to meet, informally, with Roger Allen the next day for a coffee at      
Compton Acres and JS would be raising the subject of his successor then.      
Chairman’s note. At the informal Executive meeting, it was suggested that in order to      
reduce the burden of the next Chairman, meetings should, in future, be held on a two      
monthly basis.      
Keith Alcroft, the Association’s Planning Officer, announced his wish to stand down at      
the Association’s AGM on 23 April 2016. So, the Association will be looking for      
nominations for the following officers at the forthcoming AGM      

 

Chairman

Vice-Chairman – Roger Allen has indicated that he might be willing to take on this role

Planning Officer

Thecatalyst for my departure has been the comments from some quarters over my

 

     
 

 

 

 

 

 

handling of the 12A Western Ave application. It is to be hoped that those who have

 ACTION
had the most to say about this will now come forward to take over the Chairmanship    
and the role of Planning Officer.    
UNITING THE BOURNEMOUTH, CHRISTCHURCH AND POOLE CONURBATION    
(UTC) – JS said that he received a note that day from John Probert, the Secretary of    
the UTC Steering Committee and he would include an extract from this in the    
Minutes (see below)    
JS said that at last month’s ‘pilot’ Community Themed meeting, he had suggested    
that the Councils should engage the services of an independent consultant to review    
the proposals and William Mutlow suggested that a suitable candidate might be Prof    
Gerry Stoker of Southampton University who spoke at the UTC AGM in April 2015    
Extract from note from John Probert, the Secretary of the UTC Steering Committee    
“…It now seems that Dr. Steph Lyons is preparing the case for an unelected    
combined authority (a.k.a. Combined Economic Development Authority) – albeit    
headed by an elected mayor* – for all of geographical Dorset, which is one of just    
three options for public consultation. * In a subsequent note John Probert says “An    
elected mayor and a combined authority are “negotiable” when negotiating for    
devolved powers.“    
However, I don’t understand why a unitary authority for the urban area of S E Dorset    
should not itself be responsible for Economic Development.    
Why add a new and costly layer of bureaucracy when one of the aims is to save    
costs and streamline the structure of our local government?    
If it is said that rural Dorset is not big enough to handle economic development    
matters on its own (implying of course that the urban authority will subsidise the rural    
area) the better way forward is surely to create a Combined Economic Development    
Authority for Dorset and Wiltshire. Why isn’t the Dorset Leaders’ Growth Board    
exploring such a fourth option for the forthcoming public consultation?”    
Refreshing the Core Strategy and review of Community Infrastructure Levy: TS
(CIL) – Roy Pointer asked if the Branksome Park Conservation Area Appraisal and    
Management Plan still carried any weight, particularly, in relation to the ¾ rule.    
JS said that Terry Stewart is in touch with Steve Dring, Planning Policy &    
Implementation Manager, to request that the ¾ rule is included in the revised Core    
Strategy. Nick Perrins is due to re-commence employment with Poole’s Planning &    
Regeneration Dept next month.    
William Mutlow asked if it might be possible to know the amount of Affordable    
Housing contributions currently held by the Council. He thought that this might be a    
significant sum accumulated over a number of years. JS said that, at the previous    
day’s Cabinet meeting, the Council had authorised a grant of £603,000 for the 100%    
Affordable Housing Scheme at Holes Bay Road.    
Improving Association’s communications – No new developments. MP
Leaning garden wall at (?)25 The Avenue – Cllr MH May says that “the leaning wall MH
in The Avenue should hopefully be addressed by now as officers were going out to    
visit before Christmas.” Roy Pointer will check.    
Branksome Park & plot size: As this involves an important point of principle, with TH
the consent of the Executive, Tracy Holmes engaged the services of Boyle &    
Summers Ltd, Architecture and Masterplanning Consultants of Southampton to act    
on her behalf and the Association in opposing the 12A Western Ave application and    
the Association has agreed to cover the firm’s bill totalling £2180.    
Projection equipment for Canford Cliffs Village Hall – RP is liaising with Martin ACTION

 

Since this is where the major talks are given they were less concerned about  
portability since we have the fall back option for local talks using other screens.  
Further advice is being sought on the best projector and PC for purchase by the  
Association. This equipment would be needed to be able to give good projection  
using the large screen in the village hall of course.  
3 NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT –  
JS reported that the application re Ormonde Nursing Home, 12 Pinewood Road KA
(Alterations, extensions and conversion of the building to six flats with associated  
parking and landscaping) was due to be determined at the Planning Committee  
meeting the following day – officer’s recommendation is to Grant.  
Chairman’s note: This was granted by the Committee with one Member voting  
against.  

 

Other current planning issues

4 Brackenhill (Demolish existing house and garage and construct 2 No. detached houses) – Application registered on 14 December 2015. Local concerns and Cllr MH is in touch with neighbours and reports that “it is in hand for the moment”.

Burnage Court, 6 Martello Park (Outline planning application for the demolition of the existing flatted building and the erection of a new apartment building containing 13 flats in total with associated access, cycle and bin stores) – Application validated on 28 September 2015. Letter of objection lodged on 20 October 2015.

Salterns Harbourside Hotel, 38 Salterns Way (Demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 2 multi-storey mixed use developments containing 73 residential units, a 60 bedroom hotel as well as restaurants, offices and marina service facilities) – Controversial application.

 

  1. ACCOUNTS TO DATE – JS reported that the total Association funds as at 31 December 2015 amounted to £31,362.51. Paul Fearnley plans to get the accounts off to Schofield’s shortly.

 

6 ANY OTHER BUSINESS  
Proposal to introduce on-street charges on roads adjacent to beaches – Cllr MH JS
asked JS to mention that a proposal to introduce on-street charges on roads adjacent  
to beaches is going to the Transportation Advisory Group meeting next Thursday  
(12/01/16). The committee are asked to recommend going out to consultation on this.  
This will cover roads in Sandbanks and Canford Cliffs village.  
Chairman’s note: This proposal was well aired land rejected less the two years ago  
at the Call-in Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 27 February 2014 -Minutes  
available via http://ha2.boroughofpoole.com/akspoole/users/public/admin/kab12.pl?  
cmte=CIC&meet=15&arc=71  
Embankment fall at Branksome Dene Chine – Ray Wylde asked about this and JS No
said that he would include an extract from a note received from the Council on this further
subject. action

 

“The work has been agreed and formally licensed to be carried out in accordance with our design approval. The cost of the project is all at the property owners expense apart from some of my time as a supervising engineer. Interestingly the sandy gravel fill material is coming straight from major excavation works at Christchurch hospital. It is ideal for use on this site as it is naturally well graded for compaction and has good drainage properties.

 

At present the slope is initially being filled to provide a high level work platform to enable the stabilisation and reinstatement of the owners garden behind the piled wall

Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents’ Association Agenda for January 2016

Posted on by

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

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

WEDNESDAY 13 JANUARY 2016 @ 7.30 pm

AGENDA

7.30pm.

1.Apologies/Accuracy of Minutes (11 November 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

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

ditto

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 Parkin

Leaning garden wall at (?)25 The Avenue

Cllr May Haines

Branksome Park & plot sizes

Tracy Holmes

Projection equipment for Canford Cliffs Village Hall

Roy Pointer

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 10 February 2016 at 7.30pm – The Committee Room, Rear of Branksome St Aldhelms Parish Centre (Access via Lindsay Road

Dates for your diary:

24 Feb 16 Canford Cliffs and Penn Hill Area Committee Venue – TBC

Minutes Of The Branksome, Canford Cliffs & District Residents Association December 2015

Posted on by
MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

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

AT 7.30PM IN CHOIR VESTRY, ST. ALDHELM’S CHURCH

PRESENT:

John Sprackling (JS)

Chairman

Michael Parkin (MP)

Membership Secretary

Keith Alcroft (KA)

Planning Officer

Carol Parkin (CP)

Secretary/Minutes Secretary

John Gunton (JG)

Magazine Editor

Cllr Mrs May Haines (MH)

Canford Cliffs Ward Councillor

10 Members/Wardens

1. APOLOGIES AND ACCURACY OF MINUTES

JS welcomed those present, particularly, Cllr Mrs May Haines

Apologies: Terry Stewart, William Mutlow, Wayne Hancock & Martin Heath

Accuracy: JS said that he would sign the Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting held on 11 NOVEMBER 2015

JS

2. MATTERS ARISING

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

JS

1.Quayside (former Dolphin Quays) development – No new developments

2.Former Poole Pottery & Swan Inn site – ditto

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 14/07/15. Date of site

visit not yet announced.

16 Western Avenue (Erection of Single Storey Garden Room) – Application granted

by Planning Committee at it’s meeting on 03 December 2015.

Community Working Group (CWG): The Minutes of the CWG meeting held on 25

WH

November 2015 are not yet available and the next meeting will be the AGM on 23

March 2016

Council Budget Monitoring report (2015/16) – In the absence of William Mutlow,

WM

JS reported that the Council Budget Monitoring report (1 April 2015 to 30 September

2015) presented at the Cabinet meeting yesterday shows an end of year surplus of

£0.7m.

WM has sent JS the following note about the Council Budget Monitoring report (1 April

2015 to 30 September 2015)

A number of budgets within Children’s Social Care Services have continued to

overspend with significant mitigation provided from savings in other budgets across

the People Theme. The small surplus delivered overall is from reduced demand within

key budgets in the Place Theme, across Business Improvement activity and from the

receipt of Community Infrastructure Levy to support financing the Twin Sails Bridge.

The improved forecast outturn includes a saving within central financing of £0.5m over

the second quarter and a further growth of £0.3m in Children’s Social Care, to give an

annual forecast overspend for this Service of £1m for the year. The increased ACTION pressure is largely offset by savings within Education Services after allowing for two

additional resources agreed by Cabinet in September.

A number of budgets within Adult Social Care (ASC) have moved favourably over the quarter with a net movement of £1.3m, giving a total for the year of £1.6m. The favourable movement includes retention of unspent grant of £0.6m from the postponement to 2020 of the implementation of the Care Act Part 2, reduced budget pressures and additional income of £0.7m.

The net favourable movement in ASC budget variances has been offset by the need to take account of the increased cost of £1.4m from a revised Ordinary Resident claim from Dorset County Council (DCC). The Council’s final accounts for 2014/15 and the June 2015 Council Budget Monitoring report for 2015/16 were prepared on the basis of an agreement with officers from DCC. in July 2015. A creditor of £0.4m was set up for an agreed back-pay element. Poole had begun making payments directly to care providers for the accepted clients from the start of the financial year in good faith that a back pay element was close to agreement. However in October, DCC confirmed that they were not going to abide by the agreement reached in July. A fresh claim was submitted including that Poole should accept funding responsibility for further clients and from an earlier point in time. This higher claim was for £1.8m.

The Council is not accepting the additional £1.4m is now due to DCC, with officers continuing to negotiate a fair settlement and we are required to set aside a provision to reflect the potential liability until the matter is resolved.

Taking into account the above issues, the net forecast pressure across the People Theme is £0.6m. Work is ongoing to establish the extent to which there will continue to be a pressure over the period of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP).

Other services and central items are forecasting combined net savings of £1.3 million to offset additional costs within the People Theme and deliver the surplus overall. The most significant savings are within Transportation Services (£0.5m), across Business Improvement Services (£0.3m) and growing Community Infrastructure Levy receipts supporting financing of the Twin Sails Bridge to replace payments previously charged to the General Fund (£0.5m).

The current Capital programme is £26m with expenditure in the half year at £10.9m, representing 42% of annual spend. This reflects the profile of individual project expenditure within the overall programme.

The Forecast revenue variance movements June to September 2015 greater than £100,000.

£292k increase for Children – Looked After: Pressures continue to grow for placements of Children.

£145k saving in Children – Education Staff Costs: Vacancies in the Capital Team and other service areas.

£111k saving in Children – Education – Other Savings: Education Services Grant retained due to schools not converting to academy status (£75k) saving plus other net saving (£36k).

£579k saving in ASC – Care Act (Parts 1 & 2) Implementation: Further savings following Government announcement of implementation delay to 2020 of Part 2 and the grant can be retained to support budget pressures.

£359k saving in ASC – Residential Care & Community Based Services: Main items: “Reduced over spending on Learning Disabilities from potential service users not taking up care, plus existing clients moving to more cost-effectivepackages (209k saving) Clients aged 18-24 leaving care (£106k saving).”

£171k saving in ASC – Other Income: Client contributions from fairer charges (£77k) plus other income (£94k)

£165k saving in ASC – Ordinary Resident Claims (excluding Dorset): Ordinary resident claims settled without back-pay and with lower on-going

costs than provided.

£1,362k increase in ASC – Ordinary Resident Claim Dorset: Increase in

Dorset claim from position agreed in July 2015. Correspondence in October

MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

confirmed Dorset are pursuing a higher claim to include additional clients and

ACTION

for 6 full years of historic costs.

£250k saving in ECPS – Waste Disposal: Sustained reduced tonnage over the first

half year expected to continue.

£216k increase for ECPS – Street Scene: Additional drainage works and carriageway

& footway repairs.

£702k saving in Prudential Borrowing

£1,200k increase for Poole Bridge Funding Contribution: Community Infrastructure

Levy receipts applied to replace the forward funding previously used for the Twin Sails

Bridge. This has allowed the General Fund to be compensated for previous Minimum

Revenue Provisions (MRP) made.

Earmarked reserves at the 1 April 2015 was £24.2m, with £3.6m programmed to

support the 2015/16 Budget. Details of forecast movements greater than £100,000

since June 2015 totalling £885k:

Grant Related £248K saving

Reserves Supporting the MTFP £255K saving

Culture and Community £191k saving

Corporate Maintenance £158k saving

Corporate Re-organisation Fund £143k saving

Schools Dedicated Schools Grant £328k increase

NHS Partnership in ASC £188k increase

Carbon Management Programme £89k increase

Street Scene £57k increase

Preventing Homelessness £0 change

Reserves to support the 2015/16 budget £0 change

ICT reserve virement to capital £250k increase

ASC reserve virement to capital £0 change

Public Rights of Way

RD

Buccleuch Road to Lakeside Road – No new developments.

Pinecliff Gardens (Sunken garden): No new developments.

WH

Community Engagement: At its meeting on 15 December, the Council is being

TS

asked to adopt the revised Statement of Community Involvement, with the provision

that notification to neighbours by letter remain unchanged and that minor changes be

delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration including Building Consultancy

Services in consultation and the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for this area.

JS reported that he had attended a ‘pilot’ Community Themed meeting at the Civic

Centre this morning which was attended a wide group of residents representatives

from throughout the Borough. Notes of the meeting will be circulated as soon as these

are available.

Agenda items included the following presentation by Cllrs Mrs Walton and Mrs Haines

Combined Authority Business Case for new Unitary Authority

Current position on Council budget for 2016/17

Proposal for change to waste collection

Sustaining Poole’s Seafront Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

TS

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

SPD was recommended for adoption by the Full Council at the Cabinet meeting on 08

December 2015.. This includes the following proposals for Branksome & Branksome

Dene beaches…

6.5 Branksome Beach – A Window on the Beaches

The height of the cliff and spread of vegetation combine with the curve of the cliffs to present an opportunity for panoramic views from a new café/restaurant projecting from Western Road car park. Subject to full technical reports and identified SNCI

mitigation, this new Sky Café could be a truly iconic addition. Whether a destination

or a family café, an elegant architectural and engineering solution would be

ACTION

restaurantMINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

required.

Redevelopment of the existing library site for flatted development with provision of

new community facilities could be proposed.

Cllr MH said that there would need to be a replacement facility before there could be a

decision to demolish Canford Cliffs library.

6.6 Branksome Dene Beach – The Watersports Beach

Change here could include a new and larger community and leisure venue in an

elevated position with an enlarged terrace and a handful of rooms for hire. It could

include new changing space, toilets and showers. A kiosk could be located on a deck

that projects over the sand in a similar style to the decks at Shore Beach and Canford

Cliffs. Identified parts of the woodland of the Chine shall be managed and reinforced

to retain or create ecological habitats. Furthermore the woodland could be accessed

via a new rope zip wire? adventure activity feature, and watersports should be

supported here (subject to approval of environmental reports and mitigation) with

improved facilities and access.

The beach area is the preferred location for a watersports hub to be built. Storage

space for small craft and changing facilities for users could combine with training and

teaching areas, as currently exists for the Branksome Chine Surf Life Saving Club. It

is possible that it could be managed by a commercial operator.

Additional 8 beach huts could be constructed, of which all could be capable of

overnight accommodation.

Tony Beale asked if, when the area of the Branksome Beach car park and the chine

was ceded to the council, there were any covenants put on this at that time. JS said

that this needed to be looked into.

Succession planning: No new developments.

JS

Uniting the Conurbation (Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch) – the Council

JS

exploring options for the future of local government in Poole, Bournemouth and

Dorset

Option 1 – A Pan-Dorset Unitary Council including all nine councils in

Dorset

This option is a single unitary council to provide local government services for the

whole Dorset county area as well as Poole and Bournemouth. This would bring

together the current two unitary councils with the County Council and District

Councils, creating a single tier authority.

A unitary Council for this area would be the third largest local authority in England,

smaller than Birmingham and Leeds, larger than Sheffield.

Option 2 – A Unitary Council for South East Dorset This proposal is to create a

new unitary Council to provide local government services for Poole, Bournemouth,

Christchurch and East Dorset to come into effect in April 2019.

This would bring together the services of five Councils for the South East Dorset area

i.e. the two unitary Councils (Poole and Bournemouth), the two District Councils

(Christchurch and East Dorset) and the relevant part of Dorset County Council.

A new unitary Council for South East Dorset would be bigger, for example, than

Bristol, Southampton, Reading or Brighton and Hove.

Given that the proposal affects the Dorset County Council area, it will be necessary to

consider the costs and benefits of a revised local government structure for the rest of

the County area comprising the four District Councils and Dorset County Council.

creation of a new unitary council for South East Dorset would need to be

The

MINUTES OF THE BRANKSOME, CANFORD CLIFFS & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

ACTION

balanced by a new arrangement in the rest of Dorset. This could be retention of the

status quo or a new unitary council for the areas of Purbeck, North Dorset, West

Dorset and Weymouth& Portland Councils.

Option 3 – No change – Retain the existing local government structure The two

unitary councils in Poole and Bournemouth and the two tier structure in the Dorset

area with a County Council and six district councils would remain as they are.

Refreshing the Core Strategy and review of Community Infrastructure Levy:

TS

(CIL) – No new developments.

Improving Association’s communications – No new developments.

MP

Autumn 2015 ‘Pines & Chines’ magazine – Nothing to report

No

further

action

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

MH

Branksome Park & plot size: In the absence of Tracy Holmes, JS reported that KA

TH

had drafted a letter to go to the Planning Inspectorate refuting a number of assertions

made by Mr Horden in relation to the meeting between, himself, JS and Mr Horden in

April 2015.

Chairman’s note: I omitted to report that Terry Stewart has written a letter to Cllr Ian

Potter, the Portfolio Holder responsible for Planning & Regeneration, seeking the

requirement that all sites in the Branksome Park Conservation Area be a minimum of

0.3 hectares be reinstated in the Core Strategy.

3 NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT –

KA reported

16 Western Avenue (Erect a single storey garden room (Retrospective) – Application 

KA

granted by Planning Committee at its meeting on 03 December 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) – Application refused by

Planning Committee at its meeting on 03 December 2015.

Other current planning issues

Salterns Harbourside Hotel, 38 Salterns Way (Demolition of the existing buildings

and the erection of 2 multi-storey mixed use developments containing 73 residential

units, a 60 bedroom hotel as well as restaurants, offices and marina service facilities)

– Controversial application

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. Still a ‘current application’.

5.

ACCOUNTS TO DATE – JS reported that the total Association funds as at 30

JS

November 2015 amounted to £31,420.22

6

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Former Cllr Neil Sorton – JS said he was very sorry to inform those present that Neil

passed away on 06 December 2015. The funeral will be held at 1.30pm at Canford

All

Magna Church, Merley, BH21 3AF on 17 December 2015 followed by a private

cremation.

09

Projection equipment for Canford Cliffs Village Hall – RP reported that at the

RP

Neighbourhood Watch conference in the Canford Cliffs Village Hall, there was an embarrassing amount of trouble with the Power-point presentations. He suggested that maybe the Association could donate funds to be used for some equipment which could be used by all groups needing such equipment. JS suggested that RP liaise with Martin Heath who is a Trustee of Canford Cliffs Village Hall.

The meeting concluded at 8.00pm with Mulled wine and mince pies.

Date of next Meeting: Wednesday – 13 January 2016 – Committee Room (formerly Lounge), Rear of Branksome St Aldhelms Parish Centre (Access via Lindsay Road.

The meeting closed at 8.20pm..

ACTION

All

Notes from Poole Residents’ Themed Meeting – BPCCRA December 2015

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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