BOROUGH OF POOLE
CANFORD HEATH EAST AND WEST, CREEKMOOR AND OAKDALE
AREA COMMITTEE
HELD ON 1ST SEPTEMBER 2004
AT 7.00 P.M.
AT OAKDALE COMMUNITY CENTRE, WIMBORNE ROAD, POOLE
The meeting commenced at 7.00 p.m. and finished at 8.45 p.m.
Present:
Councillor Montrose (Chairman)
Councillors Adams, Allen, Curtis, Gillard, Matthews, Mrs Moore and Rampton.
Members of the public present: 65
1.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Burden and
Councillor Mrs Butt.
2.
CODE OF CONDUCT AND DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Rampton declared a personal interest in Item No. 4 as an
employee of Siemens.
Councillor Allen and Councillor Matthews, whilst not declaring interests,
nonetheless considered it appropriate to declare that they had each received
representations from residents of Cheddington Close regarding Item No.4(a).
3.
MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the last meeting of the Area Committee held
on 23rd June 2004, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, confirmed
and signed.
A number of matters arising from these Minutes were then discussed, which
included:

Councillor Rampton clarified that, with regards to Minute No.7 and the
search for a more suitable BMX cycle track, Millfield Recreation Ground
was not now under consideration as a possible site.

a Member of the public, Mr Giles, expressed frustration at the fact that
residents views, made clear by a show of hands at a previous meeting,
had not been heeded when the revision to the Area Committee boundaries
had been confirmed. He asked that a full explanation be given for the
Council’s decision on this matter. In response, the Chairman suggested
26
that the Leader of the Council write to Mr Giles to explain the Council’s
decision.
4.

Mr Giles also asked for clarification on whether or not a piece of land along
Dorset Way to Kingsmill Road was officially classed as open space.

Mr Giles raised a further point, stressing strong concerns that help was
needed to control the growth of trees that were overhanging into his
garden, and which were likely to cause structural problems as well as
posing a general safety risk. He explained that he had been sent a leaflet
from the Council detailing what action he could take, but he emphasised
that the matter needed to be inspected by a Council Officer. The
Chairman explained that he would discuss this matter with Mr Giles at the
end of the meeting, with a view to asking a Council Officer to meet with Mr
Giles at his house.
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
a)
Traffic Regulation Orders Objections – Keighley Avenue, Rugby Road,
Sopers Lane Area.
The Transportation Officer presented his report as distributed at the meeting,
highlighting the history of traffic regulations in Keighley Avenue, Rugby Road and the
Sopers Lane area. He explained that the current orders, as advertised, had come
about as a result of comments received from local residents over a number of years
asking that the parking restrictions be removed from this area. He explained that the
advertisement proposed revoking the yellow lines throughout the area but retaining
double yellow lines at junctions, and in the narrow cul-de-sac section of Rugby Road.
It would cost no more to keep 24hr protection at these locations than it would to
remove the current restrictions, and the advertisement would allow the committee to
gauge residents’ views.
The Transportation Officer then highlighted that the Ward Councillors had
carefully considered all objections submitted, and proceeded to refer to the
comments received. It was clear that there was a general feeling that additional
restrictions were not needed at the more minor junctions in the area, and the
Committee was asked to consider the much reduced scheme recommended on
page 1 of the report.
In summary, the Transportation Officer emphasised that the Order should be
implemented to revoke the majority of the restrictions in the area but ensure that
major junctions in this area were appropriately restricted. He explained that the only
exception to this was the cul-de-sac section of Rugby Road, where the
representations indicated that residents had a range of views. His report
recommended that Ward Councillors should consult further on this specific issue.
During the ensuing discussion, Ward Member, Councillor Rampton, proposed
that the following amendment to be made to 2.1(iii) to add the words as indicated in
italics:
“Subject to further consultation with all residents of Rugby Road cul-de-sac,
approval to consider the representations and/or amend or confirm the Orders for
27
Rugby Road cul-de-sac and its junction with Rugby Road be delegated to Ward
Councillors.”
Councillor Rampton stressed that issues of safety and emergency access
should be given due consideration alongside residents’views.
A number of points were then made by Mr Scott, occupier of No.16 Rugby
Road, and spokesperson for 10 out of the 13 residents of Rugby Road cul-de-sac.
His points included:

in his experience of having lived opposite the cul-de-sac since 1959,
traffic flow in the area was not hazardous, there was no accident
record, and no problems with access for emergency traffic or waste
removal vehicles.

having carefully considered the proposed Order and plans, residents
had expressed strong support for its implementation.

there was concern however that restrictions would still be put in place
in some aspects, despite local residents opinion that this would be
unnecessary, particularly as the road was free from playing children,
was not frequented by buses and had a good record of being safe and
free from accidents.

in distributing a number of photographs that he had taken over a period
of a week at 12.00 p.m. each day, Mr Scott attempted to illustrate that
the road was very quiet, and therefore needed no restriction.

the proposed restrictions would cause problems for visitors parking.

there was no need for double yellow lines as the Highway Code clearly
stipulated that parking should not take place on junctions.

despite emailing the Council via various e-mail addresses, Mr Scott
had not received a response to a number of his requests, and asked
that this lack of responsiveness be addressed. The Chairman agreed
to investigate this matter.
Mindful of the points made by Mr Scott, Councillor Rampton felt that in order
to ascertain all residents’ views, further consultation should be carried out, whilst
accepting that Mr Scott had been asked to represent the majority of the Rugby Road
Cul de Sac residents.
Further matters were then discussed relating to how many parking spaces
would be available if the restrictions, as proposed, were agreed. Also, clarification
on the cost of advertising and making the Order as being the most economical
alternative was reiterated. A general plea was then made by a member of the public
that the process and its timing with regards to the advertising and implementation of
Orders be made clearer.
28
In conclusion, as proposed by Councillor Rampton and seconded by
Councillor Adams, the Transportation Officer’s recommendation was agreed subject
to an amendment to 2.1 (iii) to read:
Subject to further consultation being carried out with all residents of Rugby
Road Cul de Sac, including its corners on to Rugby Road, to ascertain views
on what type/extent (if any) of parking restrictions within the Cul de Sac would
best serve their interests, approval to consider the representations and amend
or confirm the Orders (up to a maximum of what was initially proposed) for the
Rugby Road cul-de-sac and its junction with Rugby Road be delegated to
Ward Councillors.
AGREED that the proposed Orders be made as advertised with the
following exceptions:
(i)
the proposed double lines be dropped at:
a) the Keighley Avenue-Renault Drive junction;
b) both Rugby Road/Coventry Crescent junctions;
c) the junctions of Plumer Road with Wavell Avenue, Gort Road,
Roberts Road and Kitchener Crescent;
d) on the eastern side of Rugby Road opposite the Rugby Road culde-sac;
e) on the western side of York Road opposite the Sopers Lane
junction
(ii)
the existing 8.00 a.m. – 6.00 p.m. restriction be retained on the
western side of York Road for approximately 15m south of the
Keighley Avenue junction.
(iii)
subject to further consultation being carried out with all residents
of Rugby Road Cul de Sac, including its corners on to Rugby Road,
to ascertain views on what type/extent (if any) of parking
restrictions within the Cul de Sac would best serve their interests,
approval to consider the representations and amend or confirm the
Orders (up to a maximum of what was initially proposed) for the
Rugby Road cul-de-sac and its junction with Rugby Road be
delegated to Ward Councillors.
(iv)
bus stop clearways are marked at any bus stops where the yellow
lines are removed.
FOR: Councillors Adams, Gillard, Curtis, Matthews, Mrs Moore and
Rampton
AGAINST:
Nil
ABSTENTION:
b)
Councillors Allen and Montrose
Traffic Regulation Orders Objections – Culliford Crescent, Cabot Lane,
Milne Road, Waterloo Road
The Transportation Officer presented a second report dealing with Traffic
Regulation Orders for Culliford Crescent, Cabot Lane, Milne Road and Waterloo
29
Road. He explained that objections had only been received in respect of the
Culliford Crescent proposals and so the other Orders could therefore be made as
advertised.
With regard to Culliford Crescent, he emphasised that despite the Highway
Code, the only way the Council was able to keep junctions clear from obstruction
was by putting in place legal waiting restrictions. The main effect of the Culliford
Crescent restrictions was to keep the junctions clear.
During the ensuing discussion, general support for the Order, as advertised
and recommended, was expressed.
A member of the public made representations regarding the Order for
Chedington Close, stating that he concurred with objections that had been submitted
and added that he would also lose a parking space if the Order was to proceed as
proposed. This gentleman added that in making this Order, problems associated
with parking in this area would be displaced elsewhere. He also highlighted that
other areas were not subject to the same safety restrictions.
Councillor Allen reported that he had received representations from residents
in Chedington Close, asking that the double yellow lines be reduced in length.
Councillor Mrs Moore raised a similar point that she had received representations
from a resident of Pimperne Close, also requesting that the yellow lines be reduced
in length. Noting the Transportation Officer’s acceptance of these requests,
Councillor Allen proposed that the lines be reduced and shortened to the first 15ft for
Pimpern Close and Chedington Close. This proposed amendment was seconded by
Councillor Matthews and unanimously agreed by the Committee.
AGREED that, subject to the shortening of the double yellow lines at
Pimpern Close and Chedington Close to the first 15ft the following
Orders be made as advertised:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Cullliford Crescent
Cabot Lane
Milne Road
Waterloo Road
FOR: Unanimous.
c)
Transportation Issues raised by Members
(i)
Speeding on Tatnam Road (issue raised by Councillor Gillard)
The Transportation Officer commented on this issue, explaining that it
was by no means a new issue, and offered to discuss the matter at the next Traffic
Panel meeting with the Police. Councillor Gillard thanked the Transportation Officer
for this offer and asked him to put to the Police that they spend a day with a speed
trap camera at Tatnam Road in the hope that this might deter future speeding.
(ii)
Speeding on Sopers Lane (issue raised by Councillor Burden)
Councillor Rampton made a comment on this issue which had initially
been raised by Councillor Burden that, due to the long and straight nature of Sopers
30
Lane, speeding was taking place. A member of the public then made the
observation that traffic did slow down around the time that children were collected
from school, due to the parking of cars on both sides of the road, but that this
nonetheless did not allay the hazardous traffic conditions.
The Transportation Officer offered to discuss both the matter of
speeding, but also the matter of cars parking on either side of the road and causing
hazardous conditions with the Police at the next Traffic Panel meeting.
(iii)
Speeding on Culliford Crescent (issue raised by Cllr Allen)
Councillor Allen remarked upon the fact that the issue of speeding on
Culliford Crescent had been raised at the last Area Committee meeting. He updated
the Committee and members of the public that traffic surveys had since been
undertaken, and that figures were now available, copies of which would be
distributed with the Minutes.
(iv)
Use of pathways by cyclists adjacent to Sidney Smith Court
(issue raised by Councillor Matthews)
Councillor Matthews explained that both Sidney Smith Court and the
nearby Doctors Surgery was situated within a network of pathways frequented by
cyclists. He explained that a number of concerns had been raised by residents of
Sidney Smith Court and those living within the area, that cyclists were not taking
care and causing a hazard to others who used the pathway network.
In response to this, the Transportation Officer explained that, due to the
Service not being able to proceed with one of the schemes already approved in the
Area Committee’s Transport Programme (Hatch Pond Road service road), with
Members’ approval, these funds could be made available to help in implementing
restrictions to stop speeding cyclists on the pathways adjacent to Sydney Smith
Court.
Councillor Mrs Moore raised the point that she also had an additional
scheme which could benefit from these available funds.
Members consequently agreed that the scheme for the Hatch Pond
Road service road be deleted from the Area Committee’s programme, and agreed to
delegate authority to the Transportation Officer to consult with the Members for the
Canford Heath Wards on how the available funds should be spent.
AGREED that the scheme for the Hatch Pond Road service road be
deleted from the Area Committee’s programme, and the Transportation Officer
be delegated authority to allocate the funding to other schemes in consultation
with Members for the Canford Heath Wards.
FOR: Unanimous
5.
LEISURE ISSUES
The Committee noted that no leisure issues had been received.
31
6.
OPEN FORUM
(i)
Darby’s Lane, Oakdale – Blackberry Bush Overgrowth
A Member of the public raised a concern regarding blackberry bushes along
Darby’s Lane, which she had observed were now higher than for the past 10 years,
and which were causing an obstruction and hazard to passers-by.
Councillor Adams agreed to discuss this matter with the Council’s Leisure
Services.
(ii)
Re-cycling Scheme
A member of the public raised the issue that the Council’s new re-cycling
leaflet stated that plastic bottles not showing the letters PET should not be re-cycled.
She however pointed out that none of the bottles from Tesco included these letters
and suggested that this matter be looked into to ensure that this was not preventing
waste from being recycled.
Councillor Adams agreed to investigate this matter also, and to ensure that
clarification was publicised.
On another matter regarding the re-cycling scheme, a member of the public
reported that some of the new bins distributed to Millfield EBD did not display a
number, whilst other residents had not yet received a bin. Councillor Rampton was
handed a breakdown of the situation as at the 28th August by a member of the
public, who stressed that residents were keen to participate in the new scheme.
Councillor Rampton agreed to look into this matter.
(iii)
Bushell Road cul-de-sac
a)
Anti-social parking
A member of the public reported that parking was taking place on
pavements along Bushell Road cul de sac, which was forcing pedestrians to
walk in the middle of the road and causing damage to the kerb stones.
The Transportation Officer noted this concern, and explained that
whilst it was illegal for vans and vehicles to park on footways, only the Police
had the power to enforce this law. He added that the Council was pressing
for its own powers to tackle this problem.
b)
Steel girders at re-cess by sewage drains along Dorset Way by
Fleetsbridge flyover.
A member of the public explained that following works several months
back, two steel girders had been left on the recess by sewage drains by the
Fleetsbridge flyover. The Transportation Officer noted this and Councillor
Adams agreed to address the matter.
(iv)
“No Right Turn” Sign at Tower Park
A member of the public asked for further clarification as to why the ‘no right
turn accept for buses’ sign at Tower Park was not enforced.
32
The Transportation Officer explained that the road in question was a private
road and that he was taking the matter up with the site management to establish
whether or not the sign was still necessary.
(v)
Repairs of Roads and Pavements
In response to a query as to how roads and pavements were prioritised for
repair, the Transportation Officer explained that independent assessments were
carried out each year and roadworks prioritised according to the condition of the road
or footway.
(vi)
Police Matters
The Chairman, mindful of the many comments that had been made at the
meeting concerning matters which could not be addressed by the Council, but only
by the Police requested that the Principal Democratic Support Officer arrange for a
Police Officer to attend the next meeting.
(vii)
Traffic Calming at Longmeadow Road, Creekmoor
In response to a query, Councillor Rampton explained that this traffic calming
scheme would commence from the 6th September and would hopefully be completed
by the end of 2004.
(viii)
New Firework Controls
A member of the public pointed out that in order to publicise the new firework
controls that had come about in August 2004, the next issue of the Community
Magazine in the neighbourhood watch section would fully explain these new
controls. This member of the public requested residents’ views on the new controls
and it was suggested that this matter could be discussed at the next Area Committee
meeting.
(ix)
Name Plates
A member of the public requested that name plates clearly showing
Councillor’s names be displayed at future meetings of the Area Committee.
(x)
Speed Camera on Wimborne Road by Thornton Chemist
A member of the public queried why this speed camera still had a cover on it.
Post meeting note: the camera is awaiting a power supply.
7.
DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
It was noted that the next meeting of the Area Committee would take place on
20th October 2004 at 7.00 p.m. in the Canford Heath West Ward.
Following the meeting, a request was received that the date of the December
2004 Area Committee meeting be changed from the 8th December to the 1st
December to accommodate consideration of the Council’s 2005/06 Budget
proposals.
CHAIRMAN
33