Minutes - BROADSTONE, MERLEY and BEARWOOD AREA COMMITTEE - 5 October 2005

BOROUGH OF POOLE

BROADSTONE, MERLEY AND BEARWOOD AREA COMMITTEE

WEDNESDAY 5TH OCTOBER 2005

The meeting commenced at 7.00pm and concluded at 9.35pm.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE PRESENT:

Councillor Mrs Hives (Chairman)

Councillors Belcham, Brooke, Mrs James, Mason and Newell

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE:

23

ALSO ATTENDING:

Councillor Brian Leverett (Leader of the Council).

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The following personal (non prejudicial) interests were declared:

Councillor Belcham – as a member of the Planning Committee and as a Director of Poole Housing Partnership Limited.

1. MINUTES

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 20th July 2005 were submitted for approval.

M3, p3-anti-social behaviour, Bearwood – first line, delete “Inspector” and replace with “Community Beat Officer”.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on July 20th 2005, as amended, be confirmed as a true record.

1. BUDGET, COUNCIL TAX SETTING AND CONSULTATION – 2006/07

The Chairman welcomed the Leader of the Council to the Meeting and stated that he was attending all of the Area Committee’s in this round as part of the Consultation process relating to the Budget/Council Tax setting for 2006/07.

The Leader commenced by stating that once again, at this time of the year, the thoughts of Local Authorities activities were moving towards next years Budget and Council Tax setting. At the present time, no information was known regarding the level of grant which the Authority would receive from the Government. Historically, the whole sub region had been very poorly funded compared to other parts of the country and, for this reason, the Leader has invited all the Leaders of the Dorset District Council, together with the County Council, and the Police and Fire Authorities to meet with him so that a joint submission to the Government could be prepared towards better funding for the future.

All of this was against a background of high Council Tax rises. The Leader referred to an article in this weeks Government Chronicle which stated that a straw poll of Local Government Officers revealed that 25% thought that they would be above the Government imposed 5% capping limit with some even expecting this to be double figures. This view had also been reported in a recent Sunday paper.

This year, the Government proposed to change the way Local Government funding would be apportioned with the School’s Budget being delivered directly to Schools. Whilst this was a technical point, it was an area which could cause confusion when comparing figures with previous years. This constant changing of accounting procedures led to a further confusion when interpreting trends. On the new proposed basis, Council Tax Payers in Poole would have to find approximately 70% of the cost of Local Government Finance with Central Government providing only 30%, given that Schools would be funded directly by Government.

The Leader then detailed the reasons why Council Tax in Poole needed to increase. In order to simply deal with pay and prices (inflationary pressures) this required an extra £2.6M. In addition to this, currently known commitments added a further £0.6M. If the Council Tax were to rise by 3% and the Government were to increase their contribution by the same amount, this would yield £2.3M, leaving a deficit of £0.9M. If this was passed on to the Council Tax Payers, a further 1.7% would have to be added, giving a figure of 4.7%. However, if the Government did not provide an increase to cover pay and prices increases, this would add a further 3.3%. If the implications of all of this were added up, this would make for a total requirement equivalent to a 8% increase in Council Tax. The Leader stressed that these were purely examples and he was therefore not in any way, giving a guide to what the likely increase would be.

Over the last two years, the Council had constantly looked for efficiencies and Cabinet regularly reviewed all new staff proposals through the Vacancy Clearance Panel and Budgets were also reviewed monthly by the relevant Portfolio holders.

The Committee were advised that Government now required all Councils to make annual efficiency savings (1.25% of expenditure), which for Poole, equated to £1.3M. This could be used to lower Council Tax but even this would give a rise of 5.8%. None of these conditions took account of any improvements to services, which residents or others might request or which would be desirable or essential. These improvements were expected to be funded from the Council’s own on-going priorities for services, requiring some areas to make even more efficiency savings.

The Council’s objective remained to deliver quality services at a price that residents could afford and the long term aim was to bring Council Tax rises to about inflation.

The Leader then welcomed questions from the floor.

In response to a question raised regarding the level of efficiency savings made from re-cycling, the Leader advised that whilst development in this area would not produce a net gain, it would of course save the Council on landfill. He added that the “Blue Bins” had been a huge success, even more so than the Council had anticipated. However, some garden waste was being disposed of via these bins, which was obviously not helping with landfill, therefore there was a need for the Council to educate with regard to “composting”. In response to a further question, he advised that it had cost the Council £1M provide the Service and approximately £400K was received a year in revenue.

A resident stated that most people were on fixed incomes and therefore increases imposed needed to match this “ability” to pay.

The Leader stated that whilst, in an ideal world, he wouldn’t argue with this as a concept, he reiterated his earlier points that historically, this region had been very poorly funded by the Government, although the Council were constantly striving to move towards “total efficiency”.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman thanked the Leader for his interesting and informative presentation.

The Chairman referred to the questions that had been submitted by Mr Lloyd that had been printed further on in the Agenda and stated that, as Mr Lloyd was not present this evening and, following common Council practice, it was not intended to read out the response from the Leader at this meeting, however, in order to assist in this instance, the response would be appended to the minutes.

1. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

(i)Footpaths 5 and 97 – update

With regard to Footpath number 5, Steve Dean, Transportation Services, advised that there had been a long-standing desire to complete the link through to Ashington Cutting. The Committee were advised that the Golf Club had now submitted a Planning Application which “may“ make this happen.

In relation to Footpath number 97, Steve Dean, Transportation Services, advised that this situation was nearing a conclusion with the advertisement regarding the notification of diversion expiring on 18th October 2005. If no objections were received this diversion would be confirmed.

AGREED - That the updates be noted.

(ii)Selkirk Close – parking problems

Councillor Mrs James introduced this item by stating that this was an on-going problem with cars parking on the road near to the bus stop. She added that there was a car park opposite but this was owned by the nearby shops. Vehicles were not able to park on the South side of the road so they were parking on the North side. The Committee were advised that this had been considered by the Traffic Panel where it had been recommended that no action be taken.

A resident commented that another problem was the fact that vehicles were now using the “turning area” as a car park. In addition, it was felt that the nearby “grassed” area could also be utilised.

On discussing this further, it was felt that it would be useful if a meeting was held involving all interested parties, including Ward Councillors and residents towards seeking a solution. A resident suggested that it would be useful to meet on site and Councillor Belcham offered to take this forward.

AGREED - that the above be noted and that Councillor Belcham seek to arrange a site visit involving all interested parties.

1. ITEMS RAISED BY WARD COUNCILLORS AND/OR RESIDENTS

(i)Bournemouth Airport

Councillor Brooke introduced this item by stating that this matter had been raised at the last meeting regarding the perceived increase over Broadstone in aircraft noise from Bournemouth Airport. He stated that he had now had the opportunity to investigate this matter further, and, whilst it was not particularly positive, he offered the following information.

The Civil Aviation Authority held no specific powers to control matters relating to noise nuisance from Aircrafts. The Civil Aviation Act 1982, also did not offer any solution to addressing the situation. In addition, the Environmental Protection Act together with the Neighbourhood Noise Act did not include any clauses controlling Aircraft noise.

Reference was made to an article in the local press recently advising of proposed expansions next year of flights to and from the airport. Therefore, it was fair to assume that the situation could and probably would get worse.

The Committee were advised that Bournemouth Airport had responded to the concerns that had been expressed to them and they had stated that they were not surprised to hear that there had been an increase in the complaints regarding Aircraft Noise. Although Bournemouth Airport were capable of a 24 hour operation, by negotiations, they currently operated between 8.30am – 9.30pm.

Reference was made to a Government directive which indicated that such issues were expected to be resolved locally through a “Consultative Committee” which met three times a year. The next meeting was to be held during December 2005 and the Committee were advised that Councillor Ray Smith was the elected representative on this committee. Therefore, it was suggested that should any residents have any issues of concern then they should contact Councillor Smith so that he could report these accordingly.

A resident referred to a situation sometime ago when similar problems were experienced and she stressed the importance of maintaining a diary of events for evidence purposes.

AGREED - that the above be noted and that Councillor Smith be used as the point of contact so that he could address the areas of concern through the Consultative Committee.

(ii)Bus Service Revisions

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, circulated a paper which detailed the changes Wilts and Dorset Bus Company had made to their commercial services from August 2005 relating to the Broadstone and Merley and Bearwood Wards.

AGREED - that these be noted

1. OPEN FORUM

• A resident stated that he was increasingly finding that the Blue Bins once emptied were being left on the pavement rather than being returned to where they were being collected from. The Chairman stated that she would follow this up on behalf of the concerned resident.
  
• A resident questioned whether there could be a “Give Way” sign erected at the Knights Road/High Howe Lane Junction. Steve Dean, Transportation Services, stated that he would add this to this Area Committee’s “Priority List” for consideration next year.
  
• A resident questioned what had happened with regard to an earlier request for an alcohol ban in Broadstone. A member stated that as far as he was aware, there was no further information to update residents at the moment however he would endeavour to provide an update at the next meeting.

• A member referred to the problems still being experienced at the Broadstone Roundabout and he stated that accidents have continued to occur following the recent road markings that had been put down. It was agreed that this matter would be considered further, at the next meeting.

The Chairman advised that a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee was taking place tomorrow (6th October 2005) in order to determine the application for a premises licence for the Canford Park Arena. Residents who wished to attend this meeting were advised that it was being held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Poole, commencing at 5.00pm.

1. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of this Area Committee would take place on Wednesday 30th November 2005 at Springdale First School.

Broadstone and Merley Area Meeting – 05/10/05

Written questions from Mr Lloyd

Q1. Local Government Pensions

The Statement of Accounts 2004/05 shows that the net cost paid by the Borough of Poole to the Dorset CC Pension Fund increased from £4,952,000 in 2003/04 to £7,663,000 in 2004/05.

This is an increase of 54.8% in one year!!!

The Council taxpayer is responsible for paying for this additional cost in the annual council tax bill!

The council taxpayer is now responsible for paying 286% of the employee contribution to the pension fund. i.e. nearly 18% of the employee’s salary bill, compared with just 12.08% in 2001/02.

The Government has proposed, somewhat belatedly, to change the scheme, by increasing retirement age to the normal 65 and increasing employee’s contributions on a sliding scale from junior to senior ranks in public service

Does the Leader of the Council support the proposed changes in public sector pension schemes, including local government pension schemes, and if so, how has he expressed this support?

RESPONSE

Accounting reporting procedures changed in 2003-4, which required the Council to use a different base figure which can lead to confusion.

However the actual contributions in cash terms, the Council made on behalf of employees increased by £690,000 or 9.6%. The increase, in the main, related to backfunding of the pension scheme as required by the Dorset Pension Fund Administrators. This is a requirement the Council is legal obliged to follow. It is part of the Government requirement for the Local Authority Pension Scheme to move to a fully funded base.

May of this year a letter was sent from the Council commenting on the proposed amendment regulations. This said:

633452 Colin Hague

c.hague

CH/sb

Date: 25 May 2005

Nicola Rochester

LPD Division

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Zone 2, E/6 Ashdown House

123 Victoria Street

London

SW1E 6DE

Dear Nicola Rochester

DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION SCHEME (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2005

Thank you for giving the Borough of Poole the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment regulations.

Elected members at the Borough of Poole are concerned at the decision by the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister that changes introduced on 1 April 2005 by the Local Government Pensions Scheme (Amendment) (No2) Regulations 2004 should be retrospectively revoked. It is understood that this decision to delay necessary changes to the pension scheme will have a significant financial impact.

Elected members would appreciate assurances that the Government will work speedily towards introducing a new statutory instrument so that the reforms (or ones with equivalent effect) will be introduced as soon as possible and that the cost of the “loss” savings will be met, either by the Government or by scheme members (e.g. via increasing employees contribution rates) over the current valuation period to 31 March 2008.

Elected members are concerned to avoid the potential for extra costs from these proposals, in the absence of any additional funding from government, having to be met through reduced services, job cuts or increased Council Tax.

Yours sincerely

COLIN HAGUE

HEAD OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING SERVICES

This letter involved consultation with Neil Sorton and Bill Wretham

The Council does support changes to the Pension scheme. The Regulations are, however nationally determined and proposed changes were deferred by the ODPM. The Councilmade representations to the ODPM expressing concern that "to delay necessary changes to the pension scheme will have a significant financial impact." and sought assurances that the Government would work speedily towards introducing a a new statutory instrument so that the reforms (or ones with equivalent effect) will be introduced as soon as possible and that the cost of the “loss” savings will be met, either by the Government or by scheme members

The response also stressed "Elected members are concerned to avoid the potential for extra costs from these proposals, in the absence of any additional funding from government, having to be met through reduced services, job cuts or increased Council Tax."

In summary the council supports fair pension arrangements and representations have been made in supporting the need for some changes to the Pension Scheme but this is more of a national rather than local issue.

Q2 Building Control Trading Account

In the 2004/05 Statement of Accounts, the Building Control Trading Account shows that “Central and support services charges” were £116,000, which is an increase of 11.15% in the year.