Open Session:

There were two members of the public present. (see attached notes).

Present:

Cllr N R G Clarke (Chairman)
Cllr Mrs B Charlton (arrived at 2.25pm)
Cllr D R Cole
Cllr M F J Daly
Cllr B H Terry

In Attendance:

Jo Stannard, Deputy Town Clerk
Terry Simpson, Town Clerk (for item P/4234)

P/4231 Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr N J Chard and Cllr N C Wood.

P/4232 Declarations of Interest

There were none.

With the agreement of the Committee, planning application numbers 85771 and 85724 were discussed next for the benefit of members of public present (see Annex `C' for observations) (on the PDF version).

P/4233 Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 19th August 2005, having been circulated, were approved and signed as a correct record.

P/4234 District-Level Housebuilding Targets

The Town Clerk joined the committee for this item.

Members considered the Town Clerk's report (Annex `A') on district-level housebuilding targets to be included in the South East Plan. It was noted that only one of the options for Central Hampshire and New Forest included any housebuilding in the New Forest and that was limited to 100 dwellings over the next 20 years. The Town Clerk believed that the housebuilding targets had been prepared prior to the decision on the National Park, in the belief that Ringwood would be included.

He said that the provision would not be sufficient to cope with the reduction in household size, with no allowance for young people currently at school who would soon be looking for houses of their own or for any inward migration. If the town was not given an opportunity to grow, this would lead to an ageing population, which would spend less and would inevitably have an adverse effect on the commercial viability of the town.

There was also concern that Ringwood was bordered by areas that would see a great deal of development over the next few years, such as Southampton and Bournemouth and Poole and this could lead to Ringwood being passed by.

RECOMMENDED:

1) That the Town Council respond to the consultation on district-level housebuilding targets in favour of option 5.

2) That representation be made to the District Council stating that the proposed housebuilding targets are too modest for a sustainable community and calling for a fundamental review of policies for Ringwood in light of the decision to exclude the town from the National Park.

P/4235 Speed Indicator Device (SID)

Members noted that the District Council had recently purchase a SID, which was now available for deployment, and considered possible locations, taking into account the deployment priorities as set out in the Deputy Town Clerk's report (Annex `B').

It was noted that Cllr Ford had already been successful in a bid for the SID to be deployed in Gorley Road, between Butlers Lane and the Gorley Road "split". In addition, it was understood that Northfield Road had been given serious consideration but, as there were no suitable posts on which to mount the SID, this would not be possible.

Nonetheless, members were keen that this road should be re-considered, as it is well known that it is used as a rat-run between the A338 and the A31.

RESOLVED: That the following locations be put forward for consideration for deployment of the SID:

Northfield Road (if a solution can be found to the installation)

Crow Lane, between Hightown Road and Crow Arch Lane

B3347 Christchurch Road at Moortown, between the 30mph and 40mph limits

P/4236 Picnic Area ­ Proposed Car Parking

No revised plans had been received from the District Council.

RESOLVED: That this item be deferred to the next meeting of the committee.

P/4237 Kings Arms Lane

Members were asked to consider the direction of flow as proposed in the Local Plan for one-way traffic in Kings Arms Lane. It was noted that the Local Plan states "Favourable consideration will be given to measures to restrict traffic movements to southbound only on the upper section..". Some members had recently suggested that this should be reversed and the District Council had now requested a formal view from the Council.

Members agreed that by preventing access to northbound traffic, this would prevent the route being used as a short cut and that it was safer for vehicles to turn into Kings Arms Lane from the High Street. They could therefore see no reason why there should be any change to the proposal in the Local Plan.

However, there was some concern about the speed of traffic currently using Kings Arms Lane and the effect the introduction of a one-way system would have on this.

RESOLVED:

1) That there should be no change in the proposal in the Local Plan to restrict traffic movements to southbound only in Kings Arms Lane.

2) That the District Council be requested to consider the introduction of traffic calming measures in conjunction with the one-way system.

P/4238 Hampshire Avon Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS)

Members noted that a consultation document on the Hampshire Avon CAMS had been received from the Environment Agency. The document described the water resources position in the catchment and proposed local abstraction licensing guidance and strategies to manage the resource in a sustainable way. The Chairman of the committee had prepared a draft response.

RESOLVED: That the Chairman's draft response to the Hampshire Avon CAMS consultation be approved.

P/4239 East Dorset District Council ­ Draft Statement of Community Involvement

The Deputy Town Clerk reported that the Council had been given the opportunity to comment on East Dorset District Council's Draft Statement of Community Involvement. A response had been sent, in order to meet the deadline, suggesting that the New Forest National Park Authority be classed as a key stakeholder as it would become a planning authority from 1st January 2006 and that Ringwood Town Council be included on the list of consultees as the town is the economic centre for several villages in the East Dorset area.

RESOLVED: That the Deputy Town Clerk's response be approved.

P/4240 Developers Contributions

Members considered a list of developments attracting developers' contributions and updated the status of those developments.

RESOLVED: That the District Council be informed of those developments for which developers contributions were now due.

P/4241 Planning applications Considered

Planning applications in respect of the weeks ending 16th, 23rd & 30th August and 6th September 2005 were considered.

RESOLVED: That the observations as shown in Annex `C' be submitted. (on the PDF version)

P/4242 Urgent Business

i) Mobile Office for Market

The Deputy Town Clerk reported that the caravan used as an office for the market had been causing some concern recently as it had been permanently parked in the public parking area adjacent to Brightwater and, more recently, had been parked in a disabled bay in the church car park.

It was noted that, because the caravan is a wheeled vehicle, the Highways authority has no powers to move it on and the Police could only intervene if it was causing an obstruction. It was therefore suggested that the District Council could be asked to introduce parking restrictions to the areas of public highway not already covered.

Members did not feel that this was the answer and hoped that they could address the issue through ongoing talks with the market owner.

RESOLVED: That no action be taken to restrict parking on the areas of public highway not currently controlled in the Market Place.

ii) New Forest Transport Forum

An invitation had been received from Hampshire County Council inviting a representative to attend the next meeting of the New Forest Transport Forum. It was noted that Cllr Clarke had been invited to a similar meeting in his role as County Councillor.

RESOLVED: That no member would attend the next meeting of the New Forest Transport Forum.

iii) Control of Advertisements

Cllr Clarke was concerned about several signs on businesses in the town including Betfred, Abbey and Masala. He asked for a clear definition of permissible signs.

RESOLVED: That the Deputy Town Clerk request some clear guidance from the District Council as to what signs were permissible, particularly in a conservation area.

iv) Closure of Morrisons

Members discussed the proposed closure of Morrisons and the effect this would have on the town.

The Chairman closed the meeting at 3.45pm.

Annex `A'

District-Level Housebuilding Targets

1. The South East England Regional Assembly (SERA) has produced its South East Plan which sets out targets for the location and amount of new housing across the region between 2006 and 2026. This Plan includes a target for Hampshire as a whole and also targets for three sub-areas, one of which is Central Hampshire and the New Forest.

2. The next step is to split those sub-regional figures into targets for individual districts. The consultation document setting out the options for district level housing targets has been received from Hampshire County Council. Responses must be submitted by 21st October.

3. The current consultation will set the figure for housing development levels within the district for the next 20 years.

4. Over the past 18 months or so Members have expressed their concerns about the lack of availability of land for affordable market housing, i.e. smaller two and three bedroomed terraced and semi-detached houses in the town. In practice there are no fairly large sites allocated for housing development in the town.

5. There is one reserve site in the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration, adopted in August 2005, for 150 dwellings on land east of Crow Lane. 35% of these, i.e. 52 dwellings, will be affordable rented properties but the remainder will not be targeted specifically at the affordable market sector. This site will only provide eight new dwellings per year for the next 20 years.

6. The options being put forward in the present consultation paper indicate that for Central Hampshire and New Forest, i.e. the sub-regional area within which Ringwood is located, 16,000 new homes are to be built over the next 20 years. Around 14,000 of these are expected to be built on sites already identified for housing in local plans and on other sites within towns.

Five options are put forward for locating the remaining 2,000 or so new homes. Of these, only option 5 provides for the construction of 100 new homes in New Forest district. The consultation paper states specifically that all of the options envisage little house building in New Forest district, reflecting the extent of the New Forest National Park.

7. It is suggested that the argument put forward for few or no new sites within the District is flawed since these allocations were approved when it was expected that most of New Forest district, including the whole of Ringwood, would be included within the National Park. This is no longer the case.

8. Clearly it would not be appropriate to see an expansion of Ringwood at the same level as happened in Totton in the late 70s and 80s. However, as Members will know there has been very little affordable market housing constructed in the town in the last 10-15 years.

A perusal of the planning applications list will show that with the decrease in the household occupancy rate in the town, new development approved is unlikely to even maintain the town's current population and will not provide new homes for teenagers currently at Secondary School in the town. This will have an adverse effect on the economic activity and commercial viability of businesses within the town.

9. As Members will be aware there are two significant areas of land which, with sensitive planning, could be considered for development in order to meet the housing shortage in the town without having a detrimental effect on the National Park. Indeed the statement in the consultation paper tends to suggest that the National Park policies will indeed have primacy over the needs of adjoining towns.

10. Members are invited to consider their response to the consultation paper on the levels of house building to be permitted in that part of the town outside of the National Park over the next 20 years.

Annex `B'

Speed Indicator Device (SID)

1. New Forest District Council, using Health Partnership funding, has just purchased a SID, which will soon be available for deployment.

2. The New Forest Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) will be responsible for deployment in accordance with arrangements agreed with the Police, Hampshire County Council and the Safety Camera Partnership for Hampshire & Isle of Wight.

3. Operational decisions will be taken by the SID Task Group on behalf of the CDRP. The Members of the SID Task Group are:

· Police Community Safety Inspector, currently Inspector Buckle
· New Forest Community Safety Officer, currently Stephanie Sutton
· Chairman of the NF Transport Community Action Network, currently Nick Hunt

4. It is hoped that the SID will be deployed at two different locations each month. Parish and Town Councils are therefore advised to put forward requests in priority order.

5. What is a Speed Indicator Device (SID)?

It is a portable sign with a variable display that detects and records the speed of an approaching vehicle.

It can be set to display either

· speed of approaching vehicle
· posted speed limit

The display can be set to operate within variable lower and upper traffic speeds.

The SID is battery operated (deployment duration of 7-10 days linked to battery life).

6. Objective of SIDs

To use SIDs in support of public education, casualty reduction, public reassurance and to reduce anti social speeding at specific locations within the New Forest District Council area.

7. Deployment Priorities

Priority will be given to locations where one or more of the following apply:

· There is a history of recorded personal injury accidents.

· Available traffic speed information indicates mean average traffic speed is in excess of the speed limit.

· Route used by vulnerable road users but does not have facilities such as footways, crossing points, cycle lanes.

Other factors will also be considered including:

· Previous speed enforcement campaigns

· Previous reported incidents of anti social use of vehicles

· Information from Community Beat Officers

· Speeding Complaints

8. Suitable Deployment Locations

SID sign is suitable for deployment on public roads (excluding motorways and trunk roads) within NFDC's administrative area having a speed limit of 40mph or less.

SIDs will not be used within 1km of fixed camera locations or on any mobile Safety Camera site or Route without the specific approval of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership office.

Normally it will be secured to a street lighting column (preferably overlooked by residential properties) clear of any road related hazards (bends, junctions, busy accesses etc), warning or regulatory signs. Mounting height is at least 2.5 m above ground level.

9. Members are invited to consider suitable locations to put forward for possible deployment of the SID and, if more than one location is agreed, to prioritise these requests.