Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Cllrs P Broadhead, M Iyengar and P Miles.

To receive information on any changes in the membership of the Committee.

Note – When a member of a Committee is unable to attend a meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee, the relevant Political Group Leader (or their nominated representative) may, by notice to the Monitoring Officer (or their nominated representative) prior to the meeting, appoint a substitute member from within the same Political Group. The contact details on the front of this agenda should be used for notifications. 

The following substitute members had been confirmed by the Group Leaders or their nominated representatives: Cllrs B Dove and K Rampton were substituting for Cllrs P Broadhead and M Iyengar respectively and Cllr L-J Evans was substituting for Cllr P Miles.

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.

Cllrs M Greene and N Greene declared a pecuniary interest in the item on the agenda relating to the Public Spaces Protection Order as they had an interest in a company that part owned a business with a property in Poole High Street and therefore declared that they would not take part in the discussion not the vote on this item.

Other such interests which Members wished to declare

Cllr S Bartlett declared a local interest in the item on BH Live due to his appointment as a director of BH Enterprises Ltd, but did not feel that he was pre-determined or biased on the subject and would therefore continue to take part in the discussion.

Cllr M Greene declared that he was a part of the working group that had developed the Parking Standards SPD and as such would make a representation to the board, but would not take part in further discussion.

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/documents/s2305/Public%20Items%20-%20Meeting%20Procedure%20Rules.pdf 

The deadline for the submission of public questions is Tuesday 18 August 2020

The deadline for the submission of a statement is 12.00 noon, Friday 21 August 2020.

The deadline for the submission of a petition is 12 noon, Friday 21 August 2020.

No public issues were raised at the meeting.

To consider and scrutinise the annual report of the Community Safety Partnership as part of the Board’s statutory role to scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions, in accordance with the The Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009.

The Leader of the Council presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

• The report referred to a specific domestic abuse helpline, but this was not easy to find on the council’s website. The Leader of the Council explained that there had been some work recently undertaken on the website, which had caused some issues where pages had been moved around. Nonetheless, she agreed that it was important that the helpline be more visible to those who may need it and would feed this back to the web team.
• A Board member commented that the council needed to prioritise anti-social behaviour hotspots by providing appropriate levels of streetlighting, keeping areas visible through other means and the expansion of the CSAS officer scheme. The Leader advised that general neighbourhood issues were not for the Community Safety Partnership to deal with, as they took a more strategic role, but was instead for different areas of the council to manage to ensure that harm was reduced. She added the CSP dealt with multi-agency matters, where as the council’s responsibility was to deal with internal matters. The Leader further explained that the CSAS officer scheme had been expanded already and that there were ambitions to expand even further, but the Council needed to work with the resources that it had available to it.
• A Board Member stated that she felt it was important that there were clear and established protocols which set out responsibilities of functions and that it was imperative that the Council worked with multiple agencies to do this and co-ordinate with them effectively in ASB hotspots. The Leader explained that the closure of alleyways in areas with well known problems, including the bus station in Poole had been successful in reducing ASB issues. Other measures had unfortunately been delayed due to Covid-19. Officers were also in the process of building relationships with neighbourhood policing teams and ward councillors to identify hotspots.
• A Board member stated that she was pleased to see reference to West Hill within the report and questioned what would be done to move the issues forward during the establishment of the proposed Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy and whether or not the O&S Board would be involved in this work, or if it would be dealt with elsewhere. The Leader explained that the Crime and Disorder Strategy would be considered by the cabinet in due course, likely to be in the next six months. She added that the work of the CSP had been paused to focus on work relating to Covid and was about 3-6 months behind as a result. Furthermore, the CSP was led by the police and whilst the council were a partner, they had to be led by the police during the production of the plan, but all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

To consider the Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) report scheduled for consideration by Cabinet on 9 September.

The O & S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Vikki Slade and Lewis Allison

The Leader of the Council presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'B' to these Minutes in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

• A Board member queried the results of the consultation, specifically the removal of clauses b-e, and stated that the proposals seemed to contradict some of the results of the responses received. She added that she felt it had been an odd time to undertake such a consultation and could not understand the rationale behind removing the clauses before further consulting on a conurbation-wide PSPO because it was not clear from the consultation that had already happened in relation to the Holes Bay and Poole Town Centre PSPO, what people really thought about it. She therefore proposed that the clauses that were due to be removed be retained for the consultation across the conurbation, which was duly seconded.

In discussing the proposed amendment there were a variety of opinions and a number of issues were raised by Board Members, including:

• There was a mandate for the consultation to go ahead as planned, as the figures were balanced. Additionally, it would be counter-productive to issue fines to those already in poverty and the removal of clauses b-e was appropriate.
• The PSPO in its current form was prejudicial to those in need and could put the Council at risk of challenge via Judicial Review.
• There was an evidence base to support the use of PSPO’s and that the current one had been successful in its operation as it’s purpose was to prevent issues and the proof was that since its introduction only three fixed penalty notices had been issued.
• A member had conducted a walk around Bournemouth Town Centre after lockdown measures had been eased and made a note of his observations. He added that while he did have sympathy with those less fortunate, there was clearly an issue with the town centre and the measures currently weren’t working stating that residents, visitors and businesses were becoming fed up with these issues and he would therefore support the amendment as proposed.
• Dealing with issues in a heavy-handed way was not always the best approach and more sympathy should be shown as everyone was generally within a few pay checks away from poverty.
• Intervention was the best solution rather than enforcement and this would involve working more closely with external agencies.

The Board took a vote on the motion and it was:

RECOMMENDED that no changes should be made to the existing Poole Town Centre and Holes Bay PSPO and that its existing clauses (a-g) be included as part of the BCP wide Public Spaces Protection Order consultation.

Voting: For – 7 Against – 6

Cllrs G Farquhar and C Rigby requested that their votes against the motion be recorded in the minutes.

Cllrs M Greene and N Greene did not vote due to their declared  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

To consider the following transport and infrastructure related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 9 September 2020:

-        DLEP – FWP Corridor Programme

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Andy Hadley, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure.

The Cabinet report is attached to the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'C' to these Minutes in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

• A Board member questioned the priorities for cyclists versus vehicles exiting, entering side roads along Wallisdown Road and stated that she was also eager to see the plans relating to junction improvements at Ringwood Road and Sea View Road and hoped that Ward Councillors would be involved at the earliest available opportunity. The Portfolio Holder explained that the “treatment” of the sideroads would be continuous pavement. He added that Ward Councillors would be involved at an early stage.
• A Board member commented that it would be useful to have video briefings, as was suggested at the previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board by another Board member.
• A Board member stated that he welcomed the scheme and requested that continuous pavements were implemented correctly and reminded the portfolio holder that visibility splays at junctions needed to be appropriate for the safety of all users.
• A Board member stated that he was hopeful that no increase in congestion or journey times would be caused by the Wallisdown Road scheme. The Portfolio Holder stated that there was some discussion about the possible closure of some sideroads that contributed to the congestion of the area and Ward Councillors would be included as part of these.
• A Board member stated that it was encouraging to hear the ambition to involve ward councillors in future discussions, but he would also like to see neighbouring ward councillors involved too.

The Chairman thanked Members and the Portfolio Holder for their contributions and reiterated the importance of engaging with ward councillors.

To consider the following planning related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 9 September 2020:

-        Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Margaret Phipps, Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'D' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Cllr M Greene had been a part of the working group that was referred to in the report and made a representation to the board, details included:

• This was a well-balanced document that set out requirements for parking that was appropriate for the location and type of property that developers could refer to.
• There should no longer be a requirement to ensure that there were parking facilities for residential developments within the town centre.
• Roads in the area were heavily congested with on-street parking and there was a strong desire to avoid the displacement of parking issues.
• The document contained a section that would only be applicable once changes were made to the Traffic Regulation Order process.
• It was hoped that the proposed zoned approach would be welcomed and that during consultation if the public raised queries into the proposed zones needing adjusting, then these views would be taken into account and the appropriate adjustments made.

A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

• A Board member commented that he was impressed with the proposed document, although the overriding issue would be the management of parking displacement throughout the zoning and that he hoped the consultation period would assist. He added that he felt it should be mandatory, rather than at the discretion of officers, for developers to provide a full parking assessment where developments did not conform to the document. The Portfolio Holder stated that there was a whole raft of solutions to counter parking issues in the proposed zones, which would ensure that the system would work.
• A board member felt the document to be comprehensive, but did have concerns about the recent changes to planning laws and how this might affect the requirements of the document. He also queried the wording around Paragraph 30 of the document. The Portfolio Holder stated the wording referred to in Paragraph 30 was an error and would be corrected. She also explained that parking issues would be considered under highway matters and this would also be applicable to prior approvals.
• The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure stated that one of the mechanisms built into this document was encouraging the use of car clubs to reduce the number of vehicles on the road.

The Chairman thanked the Portfolio Holders and Board Members for their input.

To consider the following environment related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 9 September 2020:

-         Waste Services Policies

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Felicity Rice, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change.

The Cabinet report is included with this agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Environment and Climate Change presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'E' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The Chairman welcomed Cllr D Butler to the meeting to make a representation to the Board, details included:

• Cllr Butler felt that existing system of bins that was used in Poole i.e. colours and sizes would be most appropriate going forward based on need.
• Made suggestions of how existing bins could be utilised and /or redistributed across the conurbation.
• She felt that the charges relating to garden waste bins were at risk of becoming too high to the point where residents no longer felt it to be a cost-effective option.

A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

• A Board member stated that he was disappointed in the proposed removal of WEEE collections from the service and would prefer for it to continue. He added that the Council should look at replacing the 180 litre bins in Poole with 140 litre bins. The Portfolio Holder advised that she understood concerns about the removal of WEEE collections, but that the scheme was no performing to a standard that officers were satisfied with. Instead, work would be undertaken promote WEEE collection points. Additionally, some legislative changes were due to be made which would transfer responsibility recycling of such goods to manufacturers.
• A Board member questioned the cost of replacement of different bins and indeed the rationale for doing so and stated that it was important to ensure fairness across the board. The Portfolio Holder advised that she didn’t have figures to hand on the cost of fully coloured bins over black bins with coloured lids but needed to ensure that the waste service was efficiently run. She added that there was a move nationally to have one bin colour with a different coloured lid depending on purpose. If residents in Bournemouth wished to keep 140 litre bins it was their right to do so, but there would be no difference in cost.
• A Board Member stated that she felt there to be an inequity of service across the garden waste scheme and that she felt the increase in price to be extraordinary. The Portfolio Holder advised that the cost of £55 was for a replacement bin, not for the cost of the green waste service itself.

A Board member declared that he wished to propose a motion that would seek to review CCTV footage if residents claimed damage was caused by the Council and if proven, the council replace bin free of charge. Additionally, he wished for Officers to investigate toe cost of repairing lids rather than replacing entire bins. This motion was duly seconded by Cllr G Farquhar.

A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

• The Chairman requested that the officer present provided clarity on the costs and/or impact to the council in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

To consider the following corporate related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 9 September 2020:

-        Performance Management Framework

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Vikki Slade, Leader of the Council.

The Cabinet report is included with this agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Leader of the Council presented a report relating to corporate performance, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'F' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

There were no questions, comments or debate in relation to this item.

To consider and amend the Board’s Forward Plan as appropriate and to consider the published Cabinet Forward Plan.

The Vice-Chairman presented the forward plan, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'G' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

• A Board Member stated that, in his opinion, some items seemed to be an inefficient use of the Board’s time, referring to the previous item, and suggested that a different process for the planning of the Board’s forward plan be explored.
• A Board Member stated that he sympathised with the previous speaker’s point of view, he felt that the current process was fine.
• A Board Member agreed and explained that the board was not aware of the content of each report until the agenda was published and, on this occasion, there had been no discussion, but he was content with the existing process.

RESOLVED that the forward plan be noted.

To consider the following meeting dates for the 2020/21 municipal year:

·      21 September 2020

·      19 October 2020

·      16 November 2020

·      7 December 2020

·      4 January 2021

·      1 February 2021

·      1 March 2021

·      1 April 2021

All meetings will be held via video conferencing until further notice.

The dates for future meetings of the Board were noted.

In relation to the items of business appearing below, the Committee is asked to consider the following resolution: -

‘That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items 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.’

RESOLVED that under Section 100 (A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items 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.

Following the resolution by the Board at the last meeting to establish a working group to consider leisure services in Bournemouth, to consider feedback from the group on its progress to date.

Cllrs D Mellor, G Farquhar and S Bartlett provided a brief update from the working group.

To consider the Cabinet report on the Disposal of Broadwaters, Wick Lane which is scheduled for consideration by Cabinet on 9 September 2020.

The O&S Board are asked to scrutinise the report and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

The following Cabinet Portfolio Holder is invited to attend the Board for consideration of this item: Councillor Vikki Slade, Leader of the Council

The Board considered the confidential report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.