Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Councillors.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Lewis Allison, Nigel Brooks, Mike Cox, Duane Farr, Rachel Maidment, Chris Matthews, Vanessa Ricketts, Mark Robson and Roberto Rocca.

Councillors are requested to declare any interests on items included in this agenda. Please refer to the workflow on the preceding page for guidance.

Declarations received will be reported at the meeting.

Councillors Lesley Dedman, Paul Hilliard and Simon McCormack declared interests in respect of Agenda Item 8 (Cabinet Minute No. 131 – Transfer of green space assets to Christchurch Town) Minute No. 22 and left the room for the discussion and voting thereon.

Councillor Marcus Andrews declared an interest in respect of Agenda Item 9 (Cabinet Minute No. 133 – BCP FuturePlaces Ltd – Outline Business Case for Poole Civic) Minute No. 23 and Agenda Item 10 (Cabinet Minute No. 134 – BCP FuturePlaces Ltd – Outline Business Cases for Christchurch) Minute No. 24 and remained present.

Councillors Mark Anderson, John Beesley, Mike Brooke, Sean Gabriel, Mark Howell, Sandra Moore, Karen Rampton, Tony Trent and Mike White declared interests in respect of Agenda Item 15 (b) (Notices of Motion in accordance with Procedure Rule 9 – Dorset Pension Fund) Minute No. 29 and remained present.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting and the Extraordinary Meeting both held on 21 February 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2023 were confirmed as a correct record.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

The Chair outlined the events he had attended since the previous meeting, including the International Women’s Day Community Impact Awards, and he Friends of the Priory 10 year Forward Plan presentation in Christchurch.

In addition, the Chair outlined future events he would be attending and made particular reference to the celebrations taking place for the coronation of King Charles.

The Chair then presented the Armed Forces Covenant- Silver Award 2022 certificate to Councillor David Kelsey as the Armed Forces representative.

At this point in the meeting the Chair brought forward Agenda Item 13 (Non-compliance with the Standards Complaints Process – Determination) and sought requests from the relevant Members to address Council.

This report is for information and provides the Council with details of those complaints where members have failed to comply with a determination requesting that an apology be made following the informal resolution stage of the complaints process. 

The Chair advised that the report was for information only and provided the Council with details of those complaints where members have failed to comply with a determination requesting that an apology be made following the informal resolution stage of the complaints process.

Councillors Mark Anderson, Bobbie Dove and Beverly Dunlop addressed the Council submitting their apologies in accordance with the Standards Complaints Process.

Following which the Monitoring Officer advised Council that while this is an information item Standards Committee had indicated when these matters be reported to Council that if any of the subject councillors did make an apology during the course of the meeting prior to this item being heard that those particular councillors sections could be removed from the report.

Councillors were therefore requested to note that paragraphs 9-14 and paragraphs 20-28 of the report should be disregarded.

To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-

https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1

The deadline for the submission of a public questions is 4 clear working days before the meeting.

The deadline for the submission of a public statement is midday the working day before the meeting.

The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.

A – Public Questions

Public Question from Dr Martin Rodger

The Council Leader reportedly justifies maximum Council Tax increases pointing to £6.2M cumulative Council Tax savings (1). This £6.2M also appeared in council papers (2) explaining that an extra £10.1M Council Tax income was possible in 2022/23 but without explaining whose decisions enabled this reduction.

This £10.1M in 2022/23 appears to comprise £1.8M enabled by Shadow Authority decisions four years ago, £2.8M and £7.8M from Unity Alliance decisions, the latter adopted by the current Conservative administration and finally minus, so not a saving, -£2.3M from this administration.

Can this calculation (3) be confirmed as correct? Or can the actual calculation be properly explained?

Response by Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Net Zero and Transport

It is possible that Dr Rodger has not quite grasped what this statement he refers to in the Budget Report is showing.  It demonstrates that over the course of the first seven years of the merged BCP Council, we will have kept £62 million in Council Tax Payers’ pockets compared with what would have been the case if we had increased bills to the levels allowed by Government.

This has been made possible only because of the savings generated by the merger of the three Councils: That merger was supported by the Conservatives, and opposed by the Liberal Democrats, the Poole Peoples’ Party and the Christchurch Independents – who made up the vast majority of the so-called Unity Alliance. Had they succeeded in their opposition to LGR, our Council Tax payers would collectively have been £62 million worse off.

Public Question from Jackie Delahunty (Being read by John Sprackling)

The council development advisory company FuturePlaces is tasked with assisting your Big Plan project. Do you believe the working Capital Loan of £8m the council granted FuturePlaces was in the best interest of BCP residents? Surely any fees paid to FuturePlaces for a full business case that subsequently does not progress to completion will result in those funds having to be written off by the council, ultimately risking the funds for essential services for local residents.

Response by Councillor Philip Broadhead, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth, Regeneration and Transformation

FuturePlaces is the councils wholly owned regeneration arm and functions in much the same way as the councils other council owned entities.

In order to facilitate its day to day activities the council provides a draw down facility or working capital loan as it is sometimes called, in much the same way that the council department is allocated a budget, the key difference however is that because FuturePlaces operate as a company whose work is tied to regeneration projects where appropriate we can then fully capitalise the cost which would simply not be possible if this work was done by a council department. This then means Mr Chairman that the projects are paying for the work and not the council taxpayers revenue budget.

If projects are not taken forward the cost  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

RECOMMENDED that Council approve the Financial Regulations as shown in Appendix A of the report to the Audit and Governance Committee.

Councillor John Beesley, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee presented the report on the Financial Regulations – Annual evolution for 2023/24 and outlined the recommendations as set out on the agenda.

RESOLVED that the Financial Regulations as shown in Appendix A of the report to the Audit and Governance Committee be approved.

Voting: Unanimous

RECOMMENDED that: -

(a)             the amendments to the Constitution relating to the Regulatory Committees, as detailed in paragraphs 13(a) to (e) to this report, be approved;

(b)            the amendment to Part 4D, Procedure Rule 23.4 (Substitute Members), as detailed in paragraph 15 to this report, be approved;

(c)             the insertion of paragraph 1.1.2 to Article 1 (Powers and Duties of the Council) and the amendment to Part 4A, Procedure Rule 25.2 (Additional Rights of Access for Councillors), as set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 to this report, be approved;

(d)            no changes be made to the structure or frequency of meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees at this time but this be considered by the Council following the elections in May 2023;

(e)             the dates for the respective Overview and Scrutiny Committees, as set out in paragraph 28 to this report, be agreed for 2023/24, subject to the subsequent review by the Council after the elections;

(f)              the amendments to Part 4D, Procedures Rules 13.4 to 13.27 (Public Questions, Statements and Petitions), as detailed in paragraph 39 to this report, be approved, subject to paragraphs 13.4.9 and 13.5.7 being amended to read:-

13.4.9 no member of the public may ask more than three questions on any individual item of business as defined on the agenda of the meeting. Any person submitting multiple questions may not ask their second, or where applicable, third question until other members of the public, if any, have asked their first, or where applicable, second question, subject to the Chair’s discretion.

13.5.7 no member of the public may make more than three statements on any individual item of business as defined on the agenda of the meeting. Any person submitting multiple statement may not make their second, or where applicable, third statement until other members of the public, if any, have made their first, or where applicable, second statement, subject to the Chair’s discretion;

(g)            the amendments to Part 6, Schedule 1 (Arrangements for dealing with allegations of breach of the Code of Conduct for Councillors), as set out in paragraph 43 to this report, be approved;

(h)            the amendment to Part 4A, Procedure Rule 24.3, (Access to document – Overview and Scrutiny Committees), as set out in paragraph 52 to this report, be approved;

(i)               any necessary and consequential technical and formatting related updates and revisions to the Constitution be made by the Monitoring Officer in accordance with the powers delegated.

Councillor John Beesley, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee presented the report on the Review of the Council’s Constitution – Recommendations of the Constitution Working Group and outlined the recommendations as set out on the agenda.

Comprehensive discussion took place including the following points which were raised:

• concern was expressed with regards to the right of access to documents.
• concern was expressed with regards to the removal of the opportunity for the petitioner to sum up.
• the reduction in the number of statements a member of the public can make per year, brining inline with the number of questions.
• the importance of encouraging members of the public to be able to attend and engage in multiple ways.
• access to meeting arrangements should be considered following May.
• the legislative provision around the access to documents which takes precedence over the constitution.

RESOLVED that: -

(a)             the amendments to the Constitution relating to the Regulatory Committees, as detailed in paragraphs 13(a) to (e) to this report, be approved;

(b)            the amendment to Part 4D, Procedure Rule 23.4 (Substitute Members), as detailed in paragraph 15 to this report, be approved;

(c)             the insertion of paragraph 1.1.2 to Article 1 (Powers and Duties of the Council) and the amendment to Part 4A, Procedure Rule 25.2 (Additional Rights of Access for Councillors), as set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 to this report, be approved;

(d)            no changes be made to the structure or frequency of meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees at this time but this be considered by the Council following the elections in May 2023;

(e)             the dates for the respective Overview and Scrutiny Committees, as set out in paragraph 28 to this report, be agreed for 2023/24, subject to the subsequent review by the Council after the elections;

(f)              the amendments to Part 4D, Procedures Rules 13.4 to 13.27 (Public Questions, Statements and Petitions), as detailed in paragraph 39 to this report, be approved, subject to paragraphs 13.4.9 and 13.5.7being amended to read:

13.4.9 no member of the public may ask more than three questions on any individual item of business as defined on the agenda of the meeting. Any person submitting multiple questions may not ask their second, or where applicable, third question until other members of the public, if any, have asked their first, or where applicable, second question, subject to the Chair’s discretion.

13.5.7 no member of the public may make more than three statements on any individual item of business as defined on the agenda of the meeting. Any person submitting multiple statement may not make their second, or where applicable, third statement until other members of the public , if any, have made their first, or where applicable, second statement, subject to the Chair’s discretion;

(g)            the amendments to Part 6, Schedule 1 (Arrangements for dealing with allegations of breach of the Code of Conduct for Councillors), as set out in paragraph 43 to this report, be approved;

(h)            the amendment to Part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

It is RECOMMENDED that Council: -

(c)             Agrees to transfer these assets at below the ‘market’ value, under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 general disposal consent (England) 2003.

Note – resolutions (a), (b) and (d) were resolved matters by the Cabinet

The Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor N Greene, presented the report on the Transfer of green space assets to Christchurch Town Council and outlined the recommendations as set out on the agenda.

Council was advised that in November 2022 Christchurch Town Council had formally decided to proceed with the transfer of the following three sites:

• Barrack Road Recreation Ground (including play and fitness areas),
• Two Riversmeet Skate Park,
• Waterman’s Skate Park

In relation to this Council was informed that formal approval was now required to the agreed terms detailing the financial arrangements and responsibility for the spaces in question.

RESOLVED that Council: -

(c)             Agrees to transfer these assets at below the ‘market’ value under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 general disposal consent (England) 2003.

Voting: Unanimous

Note – resolutions (a), (b) and (d) were resolved matters by the Cabinet.

Councillors Lesley Dedman, Paul Hilliard and Simon McCormack declared interests in this item and left the room for the discussion and voting thereon.

PLEASE NOTE: Should the Council wish to discuss the detail of the confidential appendix it will be necessary to exclude the press and public and move into confidential (exempt) session. If applicable, the following resolution should be moved:

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs such interest in disclosing the information.”

Cabinet RECOMMENDS that COUNCIL:

(d)            Agreed to move the project to Full Business Case stage and commit costs estimated at £1.061m;

(e)             Agrees that the needs of the Poole Charter Trustees will be accommodated within the redeveloped Poole Civic Centre and that a location for the Coroner’s Service will be progressed by the Council’s Transformation Programme - Assets and Accommodation Workstream.

Note - resolutions (a) – (c) were resolved matters by the Cabinet

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Philip Broadhead presented the report on the BCP FuturePlaces Ltd – Outline Business Case for Poole Civic Centre Site and outlined the recommendations as set out on the agenda.

Councillor Judes Butt proposed an amendment to the recommendations, amending recommendation (e) and providing the addition of a recommendation (f) as follows: -

(e)             agrees that a permanent home will be accommodated within the Poole Civic Centre building, utilising established historic Mayoral rooms within the redeveloped Poole Civic Centre; and

(f)              that a location for the Coroner’s Service will be progressed by the Council’s Transformation Programme – Assets and Accommodation Workstream.

The proposer accepted the above amendment and addition which therefore along with recommendation (d) set out on the agenda became the substantive motion.

Comprehensive discussion took place on the item which included the following points being raised:

• frustration by the Poole Charter Trustees in not having a base for the Mayorlty
• lack of public consultation

An amendment to recommendation 9(d) was proposed by Councillor David Brown and seconded by Councillor Stephen Bartlett as follows:

Council RESOLVES not to move the project to Full Business Case stage and not to commit costs estimated at £1.061m at this time. Instead to pause this project for further consideration of the Outline Business Case for the former Poole Civic Centre site as set out in Appendix A to this report and further consideration of the potential costs and benefits of the options contained therein, by the next administration of this Council following the forthcoming May 2023 elections.

Meeting adjourned 21:04

[Councillors Anne Filer and Norman Decent left the meeting]

Meeting reconvened 21:20

Comprehensive discussion took place on the proposed amendment during which support was expressed for the deferral to enable more time for the finances and risks to be considered.

A recorded vote on the item was requested and upon receiving the required support the amendment as set out above was put to the vote as follows:

For: 33

Against: 27

Abstentions: 2

(c)             resolves not to move the project to Full Business Case stage and not to commit costs estimated at £1.061m at this time. Instead to pause this project for further consideration of the Outline Business Case for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

PLEASE NOTE: Should the Council wish to discuss the detail of the confidential appendix it will be necessary to exclude the press and public and move into confidential (exempt) session. If applicable, the following resolution should be moved:

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs such interest in disclosing the information.”

Cabinet RECOMMENDS that COUNCIL:

(d)            Agrees to move the project to Full Business Case stage and commit costs estimated at £969k.

Note – resolutions (a) to (c) were resolved matters by the Cabinet

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Philip Broadhead presented the report on the BCP FuturePlaces Ltd – Outline Business Cases for Christchurch Civic Centre Site and outlined the recommendations as set out on the agenda.

An amendment to the recommendation was proposed by Councillor Andy Martin and seconded by Councillor Margaret Phipps as follows:

It is RECOMMENDED that, in the light of the local elections in May 2023 and the FuturePlaces review currently being carried out by Lord Kerslake, COUNCIL: -

(d)            defers the decision to move the project to Full Business Case stage and commit costs estimated at £969k to the Council meeting scheduled for 11 July 2023.

The proposer to the amendment set out the reasons for the proposed amendment.

A recorded vote on the item was requested and upon receiving the required support the amendment as set out above was put to the vote as follows:

For: 34

Against: 26

Abstentions: 2

RESOLVED that Council: -

(d)            defers the decision to move the project to Full Business Case stage and commit costs estimated at £969k to the Council meeting scheduled for 11 July 2023.

Note – resolutions (a) to (c) were resolved matters by the Cabinet.

Councillor Marcus Andrews declared an interest in this item and refrained from voting thereon.

[Councillors Beverly Dunlop and Pete Miles left the meeting at 22:30]

Cabinet recommends that Council approves: -

(a)             The financial strategy for the Surrey rd scheme set out in paragraphs 11 to 21 with specific approval for the use of up to £3.174M new prudential borrowing (the budget) to be repaid over 50 years from the General Fund.

(b)            Subject to Planning consent, the procurement of build works to the inhouse Construction Works Team (subject to their capacity and budget adherence).

(c)             The delegation to Director of Housing in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officer) the authority to enter a contract for build works providing all key parameters (including delivery within approved capital budget) are met.

Councillor Philip Broadhead, Leader of the Council presented the report on the PRS Housing scheme at Surrey Road, Bournemouth and outlined the recommendations as set out on the agenda.

Comprehensive discussion took place on the item which included the following points being raised:

• concern was expressed with regards to the cost of the scheme
• the question was raised as to whether the council should be building social housing not houses for public rent
• the requirement to provide houses for all

[Councillors Mark Anderson, Sarah Anderson and Cheryl Johnson left the meeting at 22:41]

In response to the concerns expressed the following points were raised:

• there is a need for private rented
• the landlord is the council

·       the scheme provides local homes for local people

Upon being put to the vote the resolution fell with voting 25 For and 26 Against with 6 abstentions.

Councillor Farquhar requested his vote against the recommendation be recorded.

RECOMMENDED that: -

(a)        the amendments in the Constitution identified in option 2 and Appendix 2 as set out in item 6 of the agenda of Audit and Governance Committee dated 9 March 2023 be adopted subject to:

(i)          the replacement of paragraph 2.2.8 as below but in relation to sub-paragraph (f) of that replacement paragraph either option 1 or option 2;

(ii)        the addition of a new paragraph 2.7 as below; and

(iii)      further amending part of the wording of paragraph 2.5.2 b) as below.

The wording of those further changes being as follows:

(i)     Add replacement 2.2.8 with (f) being either as option 1 or option 2:

2.2.8  applications where there have been 20 or more representations from third parties  provided that to count toward that number, a representation must:

(a)    identify on the representation that it has come from a residence which is believed by the case officer (at the time of deciding whether the matter needs to go to Planning Committee) to be within one mile of any point measured from the relevant application site red line boundary;

(b)    be received by the Council within the initial or any subsequent representation period as identified on the posted planning site notice relating to that application or any other related representation period provided by the Council if no planning site notice is posted;

(c)    identify one or more issues that the case officer considers to be of material planning relevance to the application to which it relates;

(d)    not have been withdrawn by the person making the representation prior to the time of deciding whether the matter needs to go to Planning Committee;

(e)    be contrary to the intended case officer recommendation; and

Option 1 (no change from current restriction in the Constitution):

(f)        not come from the same residence;

Option 2 (scope for further multiple representations from the same household to count toward 20 representation total)

(f)       provided that any additional representation from the same residence may be counted if in the opinion of the relevant senior planning officer in consultation with the Chair of Planning it raises any different relevant material planning issues to those already contained in other representations from that residence;

 (ii)  And new 2.7 as follows:

2.7    For the avoidance of doubt, for the purposes of the 20 representation process identified in 2.2.8 above, a representation that identifies more than one name on it (including a petition) shall only be counted as one representation in calculating whether the 20 representation trigger has been reached. 

(iii)  Amend part of wording to 2.5.2 b) as follows:

2.5.2 b)   … is received no later than 4pm on the seventh calendar day after ….”

(b)    any necessary and consequential technical and formatting related updates and revisions to the Constitution be made by the Monitoring Officer in accordance with the powers delegated.

Councillor John Beesley, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee presented the report on the Review of the Council’s Constitution and outlined the recommendations as set out on the agenda.

Council thanked Members of the Audit and Governance Committee for their thorough work on this.

RESOLVED that: -

(a)             the amendments in the Constitution identified in option 2 and Appendix 2 as set out in item 6 of the agenda of Audit and Governance Committee dated 9 March 2023 be adopted subject to:

                       i.             the replacement of paragraph 2.2.8 as below but in relation to sub-paragraph (f) of that replacement paragraph either option 1 or option 2;

                     ii.             the addition of a new paragraph 2.7 as below; and

                    iii.             further amending part of the wording of paragraph 2.5.2 b) as below.

The wording of those further changes being as follows:

       i.           Add replacement 2.2.8 with (f) being either as option 1 or option 2:

2.2.8 applications where there have been 20 or more representations from third parties provided that to count toward that number, a representation must:

(a)    identify on the representation that it has come from a residence which is believed by the case officer (at the time of deciding whether the matter needs to go to Planning Committee) to be within one mile of any point measured from the relevant application site red line boundary;

(b)    be received by the Council within the initial or any subsequent representation period as identified on the posted planning site notice relating to that application or any other related representation period provided by the Council if no planning site notice is posted;

(c)    identify one or more issues that the case officer considers to be of material planning relevance to the application to which it relates;

(d)    not have been withdrawn by the person making the representation prior to the time of deciding whether the matter needs to go to Planning Committee;

(e)    be contrary to the intended case officer recommendation; and

Option 1 (no change from current restriction in the Constitution):

(f)      not come from the same residence;

Option 2 (scope for further multiple representations from the same household to count toward 20 representation total)

(f) provided that any additional representation from the same residence may be counted if in the opinion of the relevant senior planning officer in consultation with the Chair of Planning it raises any different relevant material planning issues to those already contained in other representations from that residence;

     ii.           And new 2.7 as follows:

2.7 For the avoidance of doubt, for the purposes of the 20 representation process identified in 2.2.8 above, a representation that identifies more than one name on it (including a petition) shall only be counted as one representation in calculating whether the 20 representation trigger has been reached.

3. Amend part of wording to 2.5.2 b) as follows:

2.5.2 b) … is received no later than 4pm on the seventh calendar day after ….”

(b) any necessary and consequential technical and formatting related  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

The deadline for questions to be submitted to the Monitoring Officer is 13 March 2023.

Question from Councillor L J Evans

“In December 2022 BCP Council overwhelmingly agreed to work towards becoming a White Ribbon Accredited organisation.

Please may I ask what progress has been made so far and what our next steps are?”

Response by the Leader of the Council, Councillor P Broadhead

We have made contact with the White Ribbon organisation to establish the criteria and process to seek the accreditation we approved. Our next steps are to identify a dedicated contact and coordinator to take this forward and also to identify male ambassadors within the organisation.

There is a financial commitment but this can be met within the Corporate Equalities budget so will not present a barrier.

[Councillor Bobbie Dove left the meeting at 23:15]

Question from Councillor A Jones

Following the recent site meeting, could the Cabinet Member confirm whether protective wands will be installed along the length of the cycle lanes in Christchurch Rd and if so when this work will take place given the ongoing frustration with the volume of illegal parking in this area?

Response by the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Net Zero and Transport, Councillor M Greene

Following the site meeting, which only took place a couple of weeks ago, I asked officers to investigate the practicalities and cost of segregating the mandatory part of the Christchurch Road cycle lane with wands. That review is currently taking place and the results, which I expect will come over the next few weeks, will be shared with ward members so they can feed into what action might be taken.

[Councillor Lisa Lewis left the meeting at 23:16]

Question from Councillor J Bagwell

Can the Leader please explain to this chamber why an historic piece of street furniture was allowed to be removed by property developers, as "in the way of their development" this being a large cast, road sign which carried the ancient Poole Crest and Emblem stating , 'Welcome to the Historic Borough of Poole'  Twinned with Cherbourg, this situated on the Blandford Road.

It would seem that the planning department allowed this sign to be removed, with no consideration of the historic heritage value to Hamworthy/Poole and the continuing twinning link with Cherbourg, or any reference to ward Cllrs regarding it's arbitrary removal.

May we also be advised as to where this BCP Council asset is now and why the request by myself and my fellow ward Cllr Dan Butt to reinstate this historic ' street furniture' asset has been refused by the Chief Executive.

The residents of Poole would also like their Civic Regalia back in Poole and not locked up in a cupboard in Bournemouth Town Hall. 

These belong to the people of Poole, not Bournemouth and should be kept in Poole.

When will these be returned and when will the Mayor of Poole have a permanent home like the Mayors of Bournemouth and Christchurch who enjoy their individual Civic Office Homes in their own home towns.

Response by the Leader of the Council, Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

A – Debate Not Hate

The following motion submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 9 of the Meeting Procedure Rules has been proposed by Councillor L J Evans and seconded by Councillor R Maidment: -

It is a privilege and responsibility to be elected to public office, something which anyone should feel safe and proud to enter into.  

However, increasing levels of public intimidation and toxicity of debate aimed at and between local politicians is having a real impact on democracy. We need to see concrete action to protect current councillors and ensure potential future councillors feel safe to stand for election.   

‘We therefore call upon all BCP Councillors to demonstrate their commitment to tackling this issue by signing the Local Government Authority’s “Debate Not Hate” campaign statement, and for the Chairman to sign the statement on behalf of the Council as a whole.’

B – Dorset Pension Fund

The following motion submitted in accordance with Procedural Rule 9 of the Meeting Procedure Rules has been proposed by Councillor F Rice and seconded by Councillor C Rigby: -

‘This motion requests that BCP council asks the Dorset Pension Fund Committee to move all remaining energy investments in the pension fund to sustainable energy investments by the end of 2024.’ 

BCP and Dorset Councils have both declared Climate and Ecological Emergencies.  BCP council has pledged that its own council operations will be net zero by 2030 and this includes the carbon footprint of all its investments.  It is important to note that although the council has set a target date of 2030 to be carbon neutral, it is important to steadily reduce the councils carbon footprint month on month, not just in the last few years, in order to prevent global temperatures from rising 3 degrees or more.

The Dorset Pension Fund is administered by Dorset Council, however, the committee comprises councillors from BCP council and Dorset Council.  The Dorset Pension Fund is also part of a ‘pension pool’ encompassing 10 public sector pension funds, and they have instructed Brunel to run the pension pool.  Brunel have been approached to clarify the question of: Can the Dorset Pension Fund create it’s own policy and strategy of having no continued investment in unsustainable energy production even though it is within the Brunel pension fund pool?’.   Brunel have confirmed that ‘The pension funds themselves have the power to determine their own strategy and policy position in relation to sector-wide divestments (moving to sustainable energy investments (non fossil-fuel based)), while day-to-day asset selection rest with the managers that Brunel appoints to the portfolios’.  

Dorset Pension Fund has already made significant changes in the last 3 years, moving £87 million away from unsustainable fossil fuel energy investments within the Fund.  The last published amount shows a remainder of just £41 million left, still in unsustainable energy investments. It is requested that Council now request the small step required to move the remainder of the carbon intensive energy investments.  

There are 80 000  ...  view the full agenda text for item 29.

A – Debate Not Hate

The following motion was submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 9 of the Meeting Procedure Rules and was moved by Councillor L-J Evans and seconded by Councillor T Trent:

It is a privilege and responsibility to be elected to public office, something which anyone should feel safe and proud to enter into. However, increasing levels of public intimidation and toxicity of debate aimed at and between local politicians is having a real impact on democracy. We need to see concrete action to protect current councillors and ensure potential future councillors feel safe to stand for election.

‘We therefore call upon all BCP Councillors to demonstrate their commitment to tackling this issue by signing the Local Government Authority’s “Debate Not Hate” campaign statement, and for the Chairman to sign the statement on behalf of the Council as a whole.’

Comprehensive discussion took place on the motion with all Councillors speaking in support of and emphasising the importance of “Debate Not Hate”.

RESOLVED that Council supports the motion.

Voting: Unanimous

[Councillors David Flagg and Margaret Phipps left the meeting at 23:50]

B – Dorset Pension Fund

The following motion was submitted in accordance with Procedural Rule 9 of the Meeting Procedure Rules and was moved by Councillor F Rice and seconded by Councillor C Rigby:

‘This motion requests that BCP council asks the Dorset Pension Fund Committee to move all remaining energy investments in the pension fund to sustainable energy investments by the end of 2024.’

Voting: Nem.Con

Councillors Mark Anderson, John Beesley, Mike Brooke, Sean Gabriel, Mark Howell, Sandra Moore, Karen Rampton, Tony Trent and Mike White declared interests in respect of this item.

[Councillor Andy Jones left the meeting at 00:18]

To consider any urgent decisions taken by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Constitution.

The Chief Executive advised of an urgent decision taken in respect of the acceptance of the Household Support Fund 4 – to accept the £5,306,734 allocated by the Department for Work and Pensions under the current Household Support Fund (HSF).