Alderney and Branksome East and West Area Committee

BOROUGH OF POOLE

ALDERNEY AND BRANKSOME EAST AND WEST AREA COMMITTEE

MONDAY, 26th NOVEMBER 2012

The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm and ended at 9.05pm

Present:

Councillor Mrs Rampton (Chairperson)

Councillors Ms Thomas, Mrs Le Poidevin, Eades, Trent and Meachin.

Members of the public present: 40 approximately.

1.  APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillor Miss Lindsay Wilson.

2.  DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3.  MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3rd October 2012, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

MATTERS ARISING

Alderney Avenue (Resurfacing Scheme)

The Area Committee was advised that the following update had been received from Transportation Services in respect of the resurfacing works in Alderney Avenue:

“The start date for the resurfacing scheme was to coincide with the Spring Half Term week (18th–22nd February 2013). Transportation Services had received confirmation from Sembcorps that their work was now complete and had also received communication from Wessex Water, who confirmed that they had no intention of carrying out any planned work in Alderney Avenue. Southern Gas Networks (SGN) had made suggestions that they were possibly looking at a scheme to renew the mains gas supply network in the Alderney area and that it would include Alderney Avenue. At present, however, SGN did not have a firm decision or a start date for this work. The Local Authority’s position was that this resurfacing scheme had been postponed twice already and the work would go ahead as planned in February. The normal embargo on planned works by the utilities would then apply, presumably for at least a 12 month period”.

Local residents asked whether consideration could be given to completing the kerb works in Alderney Avenue before the resurfacing works were undertaken and Steve Dean undertook to look into this suggestion.

4.  COUNCIL’S MEDIUM-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN & BUDGET CONSULTATION

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Ms Elaine Atkinson (Leader of the Council) to the meeting to give a presentation on the Council’s medium-term financial plan and budget. Attention was drawn to the following key points:

Basic Facts

The Council provided hundreds of different services across 14 Service Units;

Annual Gross Expenditure was £307M;

Council’s net Budget was £104M (£71M Council Tax and £33M Formula Grant);

There were 2,450 employees (excluding schools);

The Council’s Annual pay-bill was £63M (excluding schools);

61% of expenditure was on goods from the South West Region;

59% of expenditure on goods was spent on Small-to-Medium Enterprises.

Funding Position

One of the ten lowest funded Unitary Authorities (41% less than average);

£132 per person less than Bournemouth;

Council Tax was the lowest in Dorset (10% below Dorset average);

£3M extra annual resources if Poole was to charge the same Council Tax level as Bournemouth;

£13M extra annual resources if Poole was to charge the same Council Tax level as Weymouth & Portland;

There were Government constraints on Council Tax increases.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the National Deficit Reduction Programme for the 2010/11, 2011/12 and the 2012/2013 Financial Years. Councillor Ms Atkinson explained that much had been achieved in managing costs and delivering savings over the last few years (including almost 1 in 10 jobs).

The Council was experiencing continual pressure due to ongoing impact of the recession on Council Income (e.g. Car Parking, Concessionary Fares). A shift was now needed into measures that reduced demand for services or prevented and delayed the need for more expensive and intrusive services.

It was noted that there was significant uncertainty in respect of major changes in Government Policy, including:-

-  The transfer of public health responsibilities from the NHS to Local Government;

-  Local Government Resource Review, including the localisation of Business Rates;

-  Welfare Reforms;

-  Changes to Local Authority funding as part of proposals to fund the Government’s Schools Academy Programme.

The Presentation continued by considering examples of unavoidable cost pressures facing the Council.

Councillor Ms Atkinson concluded with an MTFP summary and details of the key assumptions used, including: predicted inflation figures, assumed pay awards and the achievement of targets contained in the Efficiency Review Programme. The aim remained to improve the quality of life whilst protecting the most vulnerable.

Questions and Answers

Councillor Ms Atkinson responded to questions which included:

·  The Government had not yet announced how much funding it would provide to the Council to enable it to deliver some of the NHS services;

·  The Council could only increase Council Tax by a maximum of 2% and if it wished to increase by a higher amount, it would need to hold a referendum, at a cost of up to £250k; a possible increase of 2% in Council Tax was accounted for in the MTFP;

·  The Council was now permitted to trade in certain circumstances and was considering potential options;

·  Residents suggested that higher parking charges might be reducing the economic vibrancy of Poole and it was noted the Council was currently reviewing its car parking (parking provision and car park charges etc) through its Strategic Car Park Review;

·  There was an increasing demand for Social Care Services (in particular Adult Social Services), although the Council was looking at how services could become more cost-effective (e.g. through commissioning services).

Residents joined Councillor Mrs Rampton in thanking Councillor Ms Atkinson for a very interesting and informative presentation.

5.  LITTER EDUCATION & ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES IN POOLE

Jeff Morley (Environment & Consumer Protection Services) referred to the report which invited the Area Committee to consider the balance between education and enforcement in achieving a cleaner Poole. The report was being presented to gauge the level of support from Members and residents within the Alderney & Branksome areas for further evaluation of private litter enforcement providers, including costs and working practises, prior to officers presenting a more detailed report on options to a future meeting of the Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The following key points were highlighted:

·  There was much anecdotal evidence to suggest that residents of Poole would like the Council to take action against perpetrators of littering prevention of littering could result in a reduction in the costs of street cleansing which was currently around £2m per annum;

·  E&CPS previously adopted an approach of education through a high profile presence across the Borough but this was halted in July 2010 due to little perceivable effect;

·  The Council could potentially engage the services of private litter enforcement providers, the direct costs for which would be covered by income derived from Fixed Penalty Notices; it would be possible to encompass other forms of anti-social behaviour such as dog fouling and smoking within enclosed spaces;

·  The litter enforcement services offered by some private enforcement providers offered an opportunity for the Council to provide dedicated litter patrols with limited additional cost, however, there would be a significant resource issue for the Council’s Legal & Democratic Services Unit as there could potentially be (e.g) 50 prosecutions per month. There was also a strong possibility of reputational damage for the Council.

A discussion took place during which the following points were noted:

·  The Area Committee was informed that some Councils, including Birmingham and Newport, had engaged the services of private enforcement companies with the outcome of less littering and that Poole could potentially pilot such a scheme (e.g. for 6 months in an area of high littering);

·  Councillors Eades and Meachin commented that private enforcement companies were likely to be motivated by profit, felt this approach was heavy-handed and punitive and advised that they did not support this approach; a number of residents concurred with this view and expressed concern about the zealous approach private companies were sometimes known to take in pursuing fines (e.g. some wheel-clamping companies);

·  An approach of education and persuasion could be the preferred option, for example, focussing on education in schools, displaying signage in prominent locations (e.g. inside/outside of takeaway premises) and further litter bins could also help address the issue;

·  It was suggested it could be preferable if litter enforcement was added to another Council Service, although it was noted that the costs would then need to be borne by the Council;

·  The Committee observed that Officers and Councillors would draw up a clear protocol before it looked to engage the services of any private enforcement companies;

·  Residents were encouraged to provide their views to the Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee which would be considering consultation outcomes on litter education and enforcement at its meeting on 14th March 2013.

Councillor Mrs Rampton expressed thanks to Jeff Morley for presenting this item.

RESOLVED that the information report on litter education and enforcement activities within Poole be noted.

6.  MAINTENANCE OF COY POND

Jeff Morley (Environmental & Consumer Protection Services) presented the following information from the Street Scene Team with regard to the maintenance of Coy Pond:

(i)Grass Cutting –

Grass cutting at Coy Pond was part of a scheduled cyclical route covering approximately a quarter of the Borough of Poole and there were four rounds.Coy Pond could be very wet at times and the Maintenance Team were sometimes unable to cut parts, or sometimes had to leave the whole site, and return at a later date.

(ii)Cleansing –

Bins and litter picking were performed by Environmental & Consumer Protection Services’ cleansing staff.Some cleansing was also performed by the grass cutting teams during their visits.Continental Landscapes also visited to clear the Pond’s outlet grill and some of the more problematic blockages in the stream from time to time.

(iii)Landscape Maintenance –

Landscape Maintenance was limited to 2-3 visits a year, plus hedge cutting in one or two places, once per annum. The Borough held a small ad-hoc works budget for minor repairs to infrastructure, such as pot holes, missing fence rails etc.This budget was limited and mainly used for health and safety related repairs.

(iv)Wider Infrastructure refurbishment

Infrastructure refurbishment, such as pond dredging, was managed by the Development Team using grants, planning obligations funding etc, although these projects were not supported via revenue funds.

A discussion took place during which the following key points:

(i)  There was often an accumulation of litter over the weekends, this tended to be worse during Bank Holidays, and there were concerns that this could attract vermin to the area;

(ii) The island in the centre of Coy Pond was deteriorating, the outlet grill/grid at the end of the Pond needed to be cleaned regularly and the drain-covers sometimes lifted during heavy rainfall;

(iii)  There was a significant amount of Himalayan Balsam growing in the area, which it was felt the Council might have a legal responsibility to control and the amount of Japanese Knotwood had also increased;

(iv)  It was proposed that a Tree Trim Guard was fitted around the outside of the new Oak Trees planted to mark the Queen’s Jubilee for protection from strimming etc;

(v) One of the trees around the Pond had been vandalised recently and it was felt that there could be more planting in the area;

(vi)  A representative from the Friends of Coy Pond advised that they would be willing to consider forming a voluntary group to work in partnership with the Council to help with the maintenance of Coy Pond.

The Area Committee agreed that a site visit would be arranged involving Street Scene, Ward Councillors and representatives from the Friends of Coy Pond, to consider what maintenance works would need to be completed.

RESOLVED-

That a site visit takes place involving officers of the Street Scene Team, Ward Councillors and representatives from the Friends of Coy Pond, to look at what maintenance works would need to be completed for Coy Pond.

7.  YARMOUTH CLOSE – PERMIT HOLDER ONLY ZONE

Steve Dean (Transportation Services) referred to the report which invited the Area Committee to consider whether or not a Permit Holder Only zone should be introduced in Yarmouth Close. Attention was drawn to the following key points:

·  Consultation letters had been sent to 20 properties in the area and 89% were in favour of the proposed scheme, whilst 11% were against the proposed scheme;

·  Although it was not normally appropriate to make enforceable parking bays, the new signing regulations allowed the use of a sign with the legend “permit holders only beyond this point”;

·  The cost of the scheme was £1,500 which could be covered fully through a developer contribution;

·  Consideration would be given to reducing the extent of existing parking restrictions in the section of Bourne Valley Road northeast of Yarmouth Road at the next meeting of the Traffic Panel.

Councillor Eades and a resident confirmed there were parking pressures in Yarmouth Close and Yarmouth Service Road due to non-residents parking in the area and expressed support for the introduction of a Permit Holder Only Zone.

RESOLVED that a Permit Holder Only Zone in Yarmouth Close & Yarmouth Service Road be advertised.

8.  OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER – NEW ROAD

Steve Dean (Transportation Services) referred to the report which recommended that the proposed Traffic Regulation Order, restricting parking to one side of New Road, be made as advertised. The following key points were highlighted:

·  The proposals followed a joint study involving officers of Transportation Services, the Emergency Services and Environmental & Consumer Protection Services (ECPS), to identify locations where their vehicles experienced particular access difficulties. It was recognised that kerbside parking was a highly valued resource amongst residents, so the study concentrated on locations where the difficulties were a regular occurrence;

·  Recognising the difficulties the restrictions would cause to residents, there was a consultation event in September 2011, where the Fire Service and ECPS explained their access difficulties to the public;

·  There had been one letter of support and one letter of objection in respect of the proposals; the objector recognised that large vehicles did experience difficulties in the road, but felt that there was no need for the restrictions if drivers parked on one side of the road only (the Northern side);