BOROUGH OF POOLE
MINUTES OF THE HAMWORTHY EAST & WEST
AND POOLE TOWN AREA COMMITTEE
HELD ON WEDNESDAY 22nd SEPTEMBER 2004
AT ST JAMES’ CHURCH CENTRE, CHURCH STREET, POOLE
The meeting commenced at 7.00pm and concluded at 9.20pm.
Members of the Committee Present:-
Councillor Wretham (Chairman)
Councillors Bulteel, Collyer, Gregory, Knight and, White.
Members of the public in attendance:- 30 approximately
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Leverett and Councillor Knight (who subsequently joined the meeting at 8.50pm approximately). The Committee noted that Councillor Gregory would also be attending the meeting a little late.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Wretham declared personal interests in the following Open Forum items:
· the relocation of the Poole and Dorset Adventure Centre, as he was a trustee of the Hamworthy Outdoor Education Centre
· the cost to Council Tax Payers in maintaining the current Council Pension Scheme, as he was the Council’s representative on the Dorset Pension fund.
3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE LAST MEETING OF THE AREA COMMITTEE HELD ON 28TH JULY 2004
The Principal Democratic Support Officer explained that on page 3 of the minutes, minute number 4, seventh paragraph, first bullet point – that the words “Wessex Water Association’s Flounders League”, be deleted and replaced with “Wessex Angling”.
Mr Howard then raised the following matters:
· that he would like an update regarding the Dolphin Quays development, and its alleged encroachment upon the adjacent carriageway. The Chairman agreed that this update should be provided at the next meeting
· with regards to minute number 7, Mr Howard reported that there were a number of vagrants occupying the forecourt at Sainsbury’s forecourt from Poole High Street and that this was not being addressed by either the Police or Sainsbury’s. In response Councillor Wretham agreed to clarify who was responsible for addressing this matter, and Councillor Bulteel highlighted that the law to ban alcohol consumption in public places, which would also relate to the behaviour of vagrants, had not yet been passed and there was therefore little that the Police could do at this moment in time unless a public disorder offence was committed
· with regards to minute number 9(b), Mr Howard asked for an update from Councillor Bulteel on progress made. Councillor Bulteel explained what had been discussed at a liaison meeting with Consumer Protection Officers regarding the Pitwines development site and, clarified that the problems associated with the emission of gases, whilst not threatening to health, had been detrimental to the quality of life of nearby residents. He explained that the Council had subsequently insisted that the Developer reinstate the special deodorising equipment to address the emissions.
· regarding minute number 9(c), Mr Howard explained that he had received a complaint from a resident concerning piling at the Pitwines site, which was causing the resident’s house to vibrate beyond all reasonableness. Mr Howard explained that he reported this complaint three times in one morning and still had not received a response, but subsequently pursued the foreman of the development site himself who then addressed the matter. Mr Howard considered that this lack of Council response was disgraceful. Councillor Bulteel explained that he had also tried to report this issue and clarified that the developer had now given an assurance that all piling would happen after a test piling. He added that he had asked serious questions regarding this lack of response from Consumer Protection Officers. Councillor Wretham also agreed to pursue this lack of action with the appropriate Portfolio Holder.
A member of the public, Mr Chick, then made a correction to the minutes relating to page 3, paragraph 5, that he had referred to overnight sleeping problems taking place at Ham Park car park and not at Ham Common. Also with respect to this issue that he had raised, Mr Chick questioned what Councillor Leverett had meant in saying that the Council had to “tread a fine line” when dealing with these incidents. Councillor Wretham explained that this clarification would be given next month when Councillor Leverett was in attendance.
Mr Wilson, representing the Poole Harbour Residents Association, then referred to minute number 9(k) and asserted that Councillor White had been incorrect to assert that it would have been subjudice to allow discussions on this matter at the July meeting. Mr Wilson explained that he had ascertained from the Council’s Legal Services that notification had been given on 16th July that public consultation regarding Yard Quay could take place. Mr Wilson went on to explain how the Poole Harbour Commissioners and Poole Harbour Residents Association had agreed to a new proposal for diversion of the access across Yard Quay, as opposed to the stopping up of this area, which he considered to be a fair compromise, but added that this should only take place subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Borough of Poole should make the application to modify the definitive map;
(ii) the diverted right of way should be listed as “open to all traffic”;
(iii) the new diversion should be in place prior to the stopping up of the current access.
Mr Wilson then went on to assert that the magistrates had ordered that public consultation take place on this new proposal, but that he was only aware of this consultation taking place with the Harbour Commissioners and Poole Harbour Residents Association. He then went on to question those other residents present whether or not they had been consulted. Councillor White then explained that wider consultation would soon take place.
4. LOCAL POLICING MATTERS
In the absence of Councillor Leverett, the Principal Democratic Support Officer read out a letter which had been received from Chief Inspector Glen Chalk in response to a letter sent by Councillor Leverett following the July meeting of the Committee when various concerns relating to local policing matters had been raised. Key points made in this response included:
· reducing anti social behaviour and its adverse effects was a key priority for Dorset Police and the Poole Division in particular
· close working arrangements had been forged with the Borough’s Legal Services Department concerning anti-social behaviour contracts and ASBO’s
· with regards to lower level nuisance, the Division, along with other Forces, were pursuing the recruitment of Police and Community Support Officers (PCSO’s), which, alongside patrolling officers would be targeted to deal with the type of nuisance that had been highlighted as occurring in the Quay area
· regarding the concern raised by Mr Howard over the lack of response to his report of the theft of a dumper truck, this had been correctly reported to the Town Centre Community Beat Team However that it was acknowledged as highly regrettable that a response had not been given until eight days later. The Chief Inspector had taken steps to address this lack of response and stressed that where members of the public regarded matters as needing a “fast time” response, they should call the 999 number
· regarding the Dream Machine event, the problem of irresponsible use and riding of motorcycles was being actively monitored by the Road Policing Unit, in partnership with neighbouring Forces as well as the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, in order that concerns raised could be mitigated and to ensure the safety of the public and all road users. In order to reinforce this message and in an attempt to reduce fatal and serious casualties amongst the riders themselves, there was regular presence of Road Policing Officers on the Quay during the Tuesday evening events in an effort to promote the National Bike Safe Scheme.
In noting this response from the Police, Councillor Wretham referred to the fact that Poole had appointed its first PSCO which had been funded from the Council’s Housing & Community Service, and which had a Borough-wide remit. He explained that further PCSO’s would be recruited once funds were available.
Despite these reassurances Mr Howard indicated that he had made further calls to report matters, one of which had taken five days to be responded to, and the other more, days than he could remember. He maintained that this lack of response was completely inexcusable.
5. OPEN FORUM/QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
(a) Speeding and Vehicle Obstructions on Woodlands Avenue
(Issue raised by a member of the public, Mr Bendon).
Mr Bendon had submitted an issue which read:
“Woodlands Avenue, Hamworthy – speeding cars and commercial vehicles, mostly from marinas, travel at excessive speed. Vans and cars parked by residents and contractors on both sides of the road causing an obstruction. Police have been called, but to no avail, as the vehicles were parked legally. All properties in this road have off street parking”.
Mr Bendon further elaborated on this issue highlighting that the problem was worse at the weekends and during the summer. He requested that measures be taken such as the incorporation of speed ramps and the painting of double yellow lines to prevent parking on corners, particularly at the sharp bend on the eastern side of Woodlands Avenue from numbers 62 to 72.
The Ward Members for Hamworthy East detailed the action they had already taken regarding this matter, and how they had secured an agreement from the marina operators that they would write to all their users urging them to take more care in this area and also requesting that suitable signage be put in place. It was clarified that these signs would be put in place by late 2004 or early 2005. With regard to the obstruction being caused at the sharp bend by 62 to 72 Woodlands Avenue, Councillor Gregory asserted that he would revisit the site at a more busy time with the Transportation Officer to fully assess the matter.
Other residents of Woodlands Avenue reinforced the concern raised by Mr Bendon and reiterated the need for suitable measures to be put in place. Mr Henderson of 39 Woodlands Avenue reported incidents where emergency vehicles had not been able to gain easy access, and stressed that mere requests for more appropriate use of this highway was not sufficient, and that double yellow lines were very much needed. Mr Henderson made the suggestion that Woodlands Avenue be made one way from Beckhampton Road to Hinchliffe Close. He added that if double yellow lines were put in place these would need to be carefully policed.
Another suggestion was made that a priority system be put in place, in common with other areas of the Borough, as this had the advantage of slowing traffic down and improving the safe flow of vehicles coming out of busy junctions.
In response, the Ward Members gave reassurance that they had already started to address problems associated with Woodlands Avenue but that they would actively pursue the issue again with Transportation Services. There was a strong message from the residents that the police should visit, patrol and enforce existing traffic regulations.
(b) Supplementary Agenda item 5a:
Increasing Cost to Tax Payers in Maintaining Current Council Pension Scheme (issue raised by Mr Howard on behalf of the Parkstone Bay Residents Association)
Having submitted this concern, Mr Howard referred to the many concerns that had been raised regarding this issue, particularly following recent press articles, concerning the early retirement of a number of senior Council Officers, and asserted how it was his wish to verify the facts on this matter.
Mr Howard went on to detail the percentage of Council Tax which he believed was being paid towards the Council Employee Pension Scheme, which he claimed had meant a £220 increase on Band D Council Tax rates in 2004. He referred to the Dorset County Council Pension Fund deficit of £60 million, which he stressed was increasing, and highlighted that Poole Council’s contribution had increased from 230% to 255% in 2004 and was projected to 280% in 2005.
Mr Howard questioned why this very generous pension scheme was still being used by the Local Authority when other major finance companies no longer managed final salary pension schemes, due to the cost of such schemes. Whilst not requesting retrospective legislation Mr Howard questioned why the Council continued to offer the scheme to new employees as the deficit was growing day by day and would continue to do so.
During the ensuing discussion the Committee agreed Mr Howard’s assertions warranted careful investigation.
To assist with the discussions in this matter, the Head of Financial Services had provided a written statement explaining why the Council subscribed to this pension scheme and its impact on Council Tax rates.
Further clarification was then given by Councillor Wretham, who agreed with the comments of Mr Howard that the general pension fund had decreased, and that final salary pension schemes were being phased out in other employment sectors. He however clarified that the Government capped employee contributions at approximately 5% and, as a consequence, the Local Authority had to make up the remaining contributions. He clarified that Borough of Poole was part of the Southern Employers Organisation, and, as a consequence, could not unilaterally decide to opt out of this pension scheme, and even if it could, this would deter people from wanting to work for the Borough. Despite these clarifications Councillor Wretham agreed that this was a matter of concern shared by many.