Borough of Poole

Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee Minutes

Thursday 6th June 2013
Committee Suite, Civic Centre, Poole

Attendance Details


Councillor Clements (Chairman)
Councillor Pawlowski (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors Mrs Cox, Howell, Parker, J Rampton, Mrs Stribley and Trent (Substitute for Councillor Mrs Slade)

Also in attendance:
Andrew Flockhart, Strategic Director (Place Theme)
Nigel Jacobs, Policy Planning and Implementation Manager
Alan Leeson, Democratic Support Officer
Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Julian McLaughlin, Head of Transportation Services
Members of the public in attendance:
Item Number Item/Description

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs Slade.


There were no declarations of interest.


Other non statutory disclosure of interests Members wished to be recorded


Agenda Item 6

Councillor Trent declared a personal interest that his wife was an employee of the RNLI.

Councillor Howell declared a personal interest as he had signed up to the Poole Quays Neighbourhood Forum website.


RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meetings of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on the 25 April 2013 and 15 May 2013, having been circulated previously, be taken as read and confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject in Minute EOS123.13 to the deletion of ‘… work had been carried out with Bournemouth University on a set of actions’ and insert ‘… work had been carried out with Ward Members and the Project Delivery Board. Bournemouth University had also researched the matter, with a separate report provided’


The Committee’s Terms of Reference
was considered:

(i) To make recommendations to Cabinet or Council as appropriate, in relation to as follows:

• The development of the Town
• The economic well-being of the Town, including economic development
• The local development framework
• Town Centre partnership
• Tourism and working with partner organisations
• Transportation and parking
• Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership.

(ii) To encourage community involvement in the development of policy options and scrutiny of the same, liaising, as appropriate with external organisations to ensure the interests of the community are enhanced by collaborative working.


RESOLVED: That the Terms of Reference of the Committee be noted.

Voting: For - Unanimous


The Chairman advised that the Working Group had not met since its formation and requested consideration by the Committee to the suggestion to disband the Innovative and Dynamic Economy Working Group.


After a brief discussion in which concern was expressed that consideration be given to the issues related to the creation of an innovated and dynamic economy, it was suggested that such matters be dealt with by the submission of a Scrutiny Topic Form to determine if the matter be addressed by an individual working party, a task and finish group or an all-member seminar.


RESOLVED: That the Innovative and Dynamic Economy Working Group be disbanded.


Voting: For - Unanimous


The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised the Committee that the application was the second of its type to be received and had been considered in line with the process and criteria adopted by Council for the designation of Neighbourhood Forums and Neighbourhood Areas. The Officer explained the implications in terms of enabling Neighbourhood Forums to produce a Neighbourhood Development Plan in conjunction with existing planning policy.

The assessment criteria was briefly outlined. The Officer reported that the public consultation did not elicit any significant response. The Applicant had made the case, for the proposed boundary to be centred on the Regeneration Area and incorporate adjoining areas considered to be impacted by significant development proposals. Arising from discussion with resident associations and adjoining community representative groups, in consideration of the boundary area not being based on Ward boundaries, there had been widespread and full support. The Planning Policy and Implementation Manager confirmed that there were no issues arising from the extent of the boundary being proposed in representing a ‘neighbourhood’, as defined by the Council’s assessment criteria.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services reported that new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations had come into force on 25 April 2013. The effect was that in respect of the funding allocation to local communities there was a 15% minimum and where either a Parish Council or Neighbourhood Forum had produced a Neighbourhood Plan this increased to 25%. It was explained that the Council would retain the receipts of all CIL revenues collected but had a duty to consult with a Neighbourhood Forum on how such monies were to be spent.

A Member expressed concern that the boundary appeared to have been chosen in order to maximise the CIL funding allocation and questioned the impact upon the Council’s obligations in respect of the repayment on the loan for the Twin Sails Bridge. Further concern was expressed in terms of the effects upon the funding available for schemes elsewhere in the Borough. A Member highlighted the fact that there was a duty to ‘consult’ and not ‘agree’ as to how such monies were allocated and spent. The Officer explained that the situation was new and that it was not possible to provide categoric answers, highlighting that any group would be expected to act reasonably and have realistic expectations. The Officer explained that the new CIL regulations allowed for monies to be spent outside of any neighbourhood forum/area boundary adding, that this was more likely if a designated Neighbourhood Area was very small. The Chairman stated that although the CIL regulations were new there was a requirement to ‘top slice’ any receipts in meeting obligation in terms of heathland mitigation. The Planning Policy and Implementation Manager advised of a further commitment in terms of mitigating the impact in other Special Protection Areas (SPA’s) e.g. Poole Harbour.

The Planning Policy and Implementation Manager explained the difference between Section 106, necessary to grant planning permission where there is a direct impact that needs mitigating, and CIL which can be used towards the funding of infrastructure that has been identified and prioritised by the local authority in support of growth of its area.


A Member agreed that the designated area did not follow a natural boundary and explained that they were relaxed about the CIL funding arrangements as the Council had approved a Regulation 123 List of infrastructure schemes. A Member asked if it was a requirement to discuss the Regulation 123 List with the Neighbourhood Forum. The Planning and Policy Implementation Manager confirmed that such a discussion could take place.

Several Members stated that they welcomed the application. A Ward Councillor reported that the Applicant had been active in bringing the two communities of Poole Old Town and Hamworthy together and cited the example of a walk arranged around Holes Bay and the importance of the route in linking with the Regeneration Area. Reference was made to the publicity given to the existence of the Neighbourhood Forum to those new to the area. The Ward Councillor referred to the Poole Quays website and the well executed consultation exercise conducted by the Applicant.

The Chairman invited the Portfolio Holder to address the Committee. The Member expressed their support and explained that, as a Ward Councillor, had attended a number of meetings organised by the Applicant and wished them well.


i) That Cabinet consider the Committee recommendation that the Poole Quays Neighbourhood Forum is designated as a relevant body for the purposes of Neighbourhood Planning within the boundaries of the Neighbourhood Area set out in the Application.

ii) That in the light of (i) above Members recommend to Cabinet that the area set out in the application be designated as a Neighbourhood Area for the purposes of Neighbourhood Planning.

Voting: For - 7 Against - 0 Abstained - 1


The Planning Policy and Implementation Manager introduced the Report and explained that local planning authorities are required to produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and that the Council first adopted, as a statutory requirement, in 2006. The Officer stated that there had since been many changes in planning regulations including a new ‘duty to cooperate’ under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011. The timing of the current process was aimed to be conducted in advance of a review of the Poole’s Core Strategy, as adopted in 2009.


The Officer emphasised the point that the SCI demonstrated how the Council will engage with local people and communities on a range of planning matters. It was stated that there was no longer a statutory requirement to produce a SCI but that it was necessary to show that statutory Development Plan Documents in compliance with an adopted SCI in order to meet the appropriate test of ‘soundness’ in the DPD process.


A Member stated that there had been no issues arising from the exercise conducted in 2006. The Chairman advised that the next step was to conduct a public consultation.


RECOMMENDED: That Committee recommend that Cabinet:-

i) Approves for public consultation the Draft Revised Statement of Community Involvement; and


ii) Delegates to the Head of Planning and Regeneration including Building Consultancy, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Inward Investment, any minor text changes to the document prior to publication.

Voting: For - Unanimous


The Head of Transportation Services provided an update on the two schemes explaining the Quality Assurance principles had been applied to the consultation process, the impact of which had been to add significantly to officer time.


Details of the programme and timetable for delivery were outlined, including establishment of a Project Delivery Board. The Officer reported that the Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) was to receive a similar update.


The Chairman referred to the Sea View Scheme and sought confirmation that the work was complete. The Officer advised that the further work was required, e.g. surfacing and CCTV. Members reported having received positive comments and the Chairman stated that, as a user, the scheme was regarded to be very successful. A Member requested that an update report be presented at the Newtown and Parkstone Area Committee.


A Member enquired whether the initial tranche of funding, provided by the Department for Transport (DfT) would be fully spent within Year 1. The Officer confirmed that the Year 1 target had been met and strict target applied to Year 2 and Year 3. The Officer stated that due to the Council’s adherence to the DfT deadlines for reporting of performance, the Council had been advised that a relaxed approach could be taken in respect of future reporting obligations.


A Member referred to an update report that had been presented to the Alderney and Branksome Area Committee and asked how the consultation was to be conducted in respect of the proposed improvements to Pottery Roundabout as it is at a point where three Wards converge? The Officer explained that the scale of the scheme was likely to require significant investment e.g. signalling, beyond the scope of the LSTF. The Officer further explained that the LSTF targeted short-term objectives and that the long-term transport objectives were as defined within the approved Local Transport Plan (LTP). The Member also referred to the wider impact of the Ashley Road Scheme.


A Member highlighted that the traffic flow in Poole Road and Ashley Road could be improved if the traffic lights were synchronised.


RESOLVED: That the contents of the information Report be noted.


Voting: For - Unanimous


The Head of Transportation Services introduced an update on the delivery process associated with the Poole Central Area short-term safety schemes. The Officer reported that following an initial stakeholder meeting held in February 2013 to provide background on the Quality Audit (QA) process a Member Delivery Board had since been formed. It was reported that Mouchel had been appointed as an external QA consultant and had undertaken a baseline audit on 22 May 2013.


A Member enquired why Mouchel appeared to always be appointed and if this was necessary? The Officer explained that Mouchel were appointed as the Council’s current external consultants on transportation matters but were not consulted or engaged on all projects or schemes.


RESOLVED: That the contents of the information Report be noted.


Voting: For - Unanimous


There was no urgent business.


Consideration was given to the Committee’s Forward Plan. Reference was made to the recent announcement of an increase in car parking charges, given that the Strategic Car Parking Review had not been concluded.


RESOLVED: That Forward Plan be noted.

The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm and finished at 7.53pm.