Notices of Motions in accordance with Procedure Rule 10
Motion to Full Council: Bio Diversity Loss
The following motion submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 10 of the Meeting Procedure Rules has been proposed by Councillor J Salmon.
This Council notes:
1. That January 2026 the UK Government has published the national security assessment Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, which concludes with high confidence that ecosystem degradation already threatens UK security and prosperity and is likely to intensify to 2050 and beyond.
2. That the report identifies cascading risks including food and water insecurity, flooding and extreme weather, pandemic risk, supply chain disruption, economic instability, migration pressures, and social instability.
3. That the report explicitly states that nature is a foundation of national security and that the loss of ecosystems threatens the systems that provide food, clean water, climate stability, and economic resilience.
4. That the UK imports a substantial proportion of its food and is not currently self-sufficient, leaving communities exposed to global shocks, price spikes and supply disruption.
5. That many of these risks are already visible in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole through flooding, overheating, loss of green space, biodiversity decline, rising food insecurity, and pressure on local infrastructure and public services.
This Council believes:
1. That the Government’s own national security assessment represents a material and urgent change in the risk environment for local authorities.
2. That biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation are not abstract environmental concerns but emerging threats to community safety, economic stability, public health, and food security.
3. That protecting and restoring nature must be treated as essential resilience infrastructure, on a par with flood defences, housing, transport and public health planning.
4. That failure to act now will increase long-term financial pressures on local government through higher costs linked to flooding, overheating, food insecurity, health inequality, and emergency response.
This Council resolves to:
A. Direct action by the Leader and Cabinet
1. That the Leader of the Council instructs Cabinet to undertake an urgent cross-portfolio review of the adequacy of existing Council strategies in light of the national security risks identified, including:
· Development Plan Documents and planning policy
· Flood and coastal risk management
· The Local Transport Plan and air quality strategy
· Public health and food resilience planning
· Biodiversity, green infrastructure and nature recovery strategies
· Climate adaptation and overheating risk
· Community resilience and civil contingencies
2. That Cabinet instructs officers to prepare a consolidated risk and resilience report identifying:
· Key local vulnerabilities
· Strategic gaps in current policy
· Practical actions to strengthen long-term resilience
· Implications for future investment priorities
3. That this review explicitly considers whether biodiversity and ecosystem decline should be recognised as a core strategic risk category alongside climate change, financial pressures and demographic change.
B. Strengthen democratic scrutiny
1. Request that the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committees examine:
· The local impacts of ecosystem decline
· Risks to food security, public health and infrastructure
· The adequacy of current mitigation and adaptation measures
and provide recommendations to Cabinet.
C. Strengthen corporate risk governance
1. That the Audit and Governance Committee ... view the full agenda text for item 3.
Notices of Motions in accordance with Procedure Rule 10
Motion to Council: Protecting Enforceable SEND Support
The following motion submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 10 of the Meeting Procedure Rules has been proposed by Councillor J Salmon.
Council notes:
1. That Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) currently provide the primary legal mechanism through which children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) can secure enforceable support.
2. That the Government’s proposed SEND reforms set out in the White Paper Every Child Achieving and Thriving introduce Individual Support Plans (ISPs) as the primary planning mechanism for many children, while linking EHCPs more closely to nationally defined Specialist Provision Packages.
3. That ISP-based provision does not provide the same legally enforceable entitlement where support is not delivered.
4. That the proposed reforms would increase the role of schools in funding and delivering SEND support.
5. That national commentary and emerging legal challenge have raised concern that aspects of the proposed reforms may weaken existing legal rights and routes to challenge unmet need.
6. That Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council faces significant financial pressures within its High Needs SEND budget.
7. That there is concern nationally that SEND reform designed to manage system costs may weaken enforceable protections for children.
8. That rising SEND costs nationally are widely linked to increasing reliance on private and independent provision, alongside shortages of publicly provided specialist places and services.
9. That adopted, kinship and care-experienced children often experience developmental trauma which affects their educational engagement and support needs.
10.That recent changes to the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (ASGSF) have reduced access to therapeutic support for adopted and special guardianship families.
11.That leading SEND legal practitioners, including Michael Charles of Sinclairs Law, have warned of a potential shift of decision-making power away from families within emerging SEND reforms.
12.That national SEND charities and professional bodies have welcomed the ambition of reform while calling for safeguards to ensure access to statutory support is not narrowed.
Council believes:
1. That SEND reform should improve support without weakening families’ ability to secure provision through enforceable rights.
2. That expanding access to support should not come at the expense of enforceable entitlement or meaningful rights of challenge.
3. That support must be driven by need rather than affordability.
4. That trauma-informed approaches are essential to supporting adopted, kinship and care-experienced children.
5. That SEND reform should be aligned with wider support systems, including access to therapeutic provision.
6. That addressing the financial sustainability of the SEND system should focus on strengthening publicly available provision and specialist capacity, rather than reducing children’s access to statutory support.
Council resolves to:
1. Respond to the Government’s SEND consultation in a way that supports reform only where it:
· retains EHCPs as the primary route to legally enforceable support
· does not reduce access to EHCPs
· does not shift responsibility for securing provision from the local authority to schools
· does not allow financial pressures to limit children’s legal entitlement
· does not weaken routes for families to ... view the full agenda text for item 14.