Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Cllr JJ Butt, Cllr D Farr, Cllr M Howell and Cllr T O’Neill.

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 were appointed for this meeting: Cllr D Borthwick for Cllr D Farr, Cllr M Haines for Cllr JJ Butt, Cllr A Hadley for Cllr M Howell, and Cllr R Lawton for Cllr T O’Neill.

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.

Cllr M Haines declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 6, Crime and Disorder Scrutiny, as she had been involved in the Community Safety Partnership as the former Portfolio Holder. She did not take part and left the room while this item was considered.

During the debate on Agenda Item 7, Biodiversity Net Gain, Cllr C Rigby declared for the purpose of transparency that he owned a business which did consultancy work on green and blue roofing.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on 15 November 2021.

The minutes of the meetings held on 15 November 2021 were approved as a correct record.

To note and comment on the attached action sheet which tracks decisions, actions and recommendations from previous meetings.

The Chairman confirmed that there were no updates for this meeting.

To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution, which 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 question is 4 clear working days before the meeting.

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

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

The Chairman reported that twelve public statements had been submitted in accordance with the Council’s Constitution by the required deadline and had been circulated to all Board Members. These statements related to the Call in at Agenda Item 8 and would be read out at the start of that item. In addition, a significant number of written representations on this item had been received and circulated prior to the start of the meeting.

The Overview and Scrutiny Board are asked to consider and scrutinise the attached Community Safety Partnership report.

The Board is asked to consider this 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.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Bobbie Dove, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Regulatory Services

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Regulatory Services introduced a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and which appears as Appendix ‘A’ to these minutes in the Minute Book.

The Director of Communities and Chief Superintendent Mark Callaghan, Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Chair, delivered a short presentation to accompany the report. The presentation highlighted recent changes to the CSP’s governance structure, key achievements to date, current priorities, and the development of a BCP crime and disorder reduction strategy.

The Director and Chief Superintendent responded to comments and requests for clarification, details included:

·       The Council had overall statutory responsibility for the CSP as lead partner, but all partners had a statutory duty to meet its objectives.

·       The CSP identified its key priorities using detailed information sources, including the annual strategic assessment. Priorities focussed on all communities in the BCP area, not just the town centres, and one of the strategic delivery groups was dedicated to ‘safer communities’.

·       It was not possible to prioritise every issue, but this did not mean issues were not being addressed in other ways by partners.

·       On the wider involvement of criminal justice services, it was confirmed that there was a gap in youth provision for secondary intervention which was now being addressed through CSP work around child exploitation. The Board was advised of the roles of the Dorset Criminal Justice Board and the pan Dorset Reducing Reoffending Board.

·       The priorities of the Police and Crime Plan were influenced by the areas of concern highlighted by communities.

·       A Board member enquired about the provision of more meaningful data and was assured that this could be provided in future reports, now the right structure was in place for the CSP to deliver on its priorities. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were being considered for the strategic delivery groups, and work had started on a new crime and disorder reduction strategy.

·       It was confirmed that the CSP used examples of the ‘lived experience’, involving victims and perpetrators, to help inform its work.

·       A communications strategy and a community engagement strategy were being developed, to promote awareness of the CSP, gain a better understanding of people’s experiences of crime and disorder, and make effective use of social media.

·       There was evidence that Community Protection Notices (CPNs) were effective in preventing reoffending, although not in all cases. There was also a warning stage prior to a formal CPN which was often effective in preventing escalation. 

·       There was discussion on the type of offences usually categorised as ‘low harm’ and the use of this terminology, with a recognition that all victims experienced harm. A Board member expressed frustration at the lack of progress in tackling ongoing vandalism in her ward. Members were encouraged to continue to report such issues to the ASB team and the Police as appropriate.

·       There were specific groups which focussed on hate crimes, engaging with the community and sharing data between partners.  The Community Engagement Strategy would help to identify existing advocacy groups  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

To consider the Biodiversity Net Gain report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 15 December 2021.

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Philip Broadhead, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth and Regeneration; Councillor Mark Anderson, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Place; and Councillor Bobbie Dove, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Regulatory Services

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

The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Development Growth and Regeneration presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and which appears as Appendix ‘B’ to these minutes in the Minute Book.

The Portfolio Holder and Officers responded to comments and requests for clarification, details included:

·       A Board member asked how net gain would be achieved and how the financial implications for the Council would be funded. It was explained that the Council had decided to start now rather than wait until later in the transition period to allow as much time as possible to work with stakeholders and get things right. Funding would initially be found from the budget, but alternative options would be explored in the long term.

·       A Board member highlighted existing good practice in other councils. This was acknowledged and it was also pointed out that BCP was applying its biodiversity net gain to all developments, not just majors.

·       Board members spoke about the possibility of seeking more than the mandatory 10% and it was noted that some developers were already delivering more than this.

·       Board members asked about how the work on net gain fitted in to the Local Plan process. It was confirmed that net gain would be included in the Local Plan but as this was still being prepared the Council wanted to move at pace and embed net gain as early as possible.

·       A Board member questioned whether funding would be better directed to training all planning officers in climate literacy. It was explained that the recruitment of ecology officers filled an existing shortfall, and at this early stage their expertise was needed, however this did not preclude the upskilling of planning officers.

·       In terms of new burdens lobbying, councils were currently awaiting further details from central Government on the implementation and funding of these requirements.

·       A Board member gave examples of some new Council housing developments which had included a variety of biodiversity measures.

Overall, Board members welcomed the implementation of biodiversity net gain. The Deputy Leader stated that he would be happy to provide an update to the Board in six months.

The Board is asked to review and scrutinise the decision of the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability in relation to the Tatnam Road ETRO, following the receipt of a valid call-in request from the pre-requisite number of councillors.

In accordance with the Constitution, the Board must determine whether or not to offer any advice in relation to the decision. If advice is offered, Cabinet will be required to reconsider the decision and consider any advice offered.

Cabinet Portfolio Holder invited to attend for this item: Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Transport.

The Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed in considering determining the call-in of the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Transport’s decision to confirm the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) for Tatnam Road.

The following Public Statements were read out:

Statement from Ms Corinne Martin:

We can confirm that we have consulted with residents on Tatnam Road in May 2021 regarding the closure of this previously very busy road. The attached petition provides strong evidence, that almost all residents of Tatnam Road support the road closure. The petition was signed by 67 households on Tatnam Road. We consulted with 76 households out of which 67 agreed with the road closure and would like to keep it in place, 6 disagreed and 3 did not have an opinion either way. 

Statement from Mrs Joanna Keates:

Please see below a summary of feedback we collected from Tatnam residents to keep the Tatnam road closure:

1.     The noise from traffic has reduced significantly;

2.     It is safer for pedestrians especially school children as well as cyclists;

3.     Cycling and walking along the road have increased;

4.     Resident's health (e.g.asthma) has improved;

5.     Better sleep due to less noise and less anxiety about the risks to the children;

6.     Quite a few residents were initially against the closure but have now changed their mind and fully support it - my husband included!

Statement from Mr Nick Baxterr:

I have been a resident of Tatnam Road since 1998.  Tatnam Road has become; Safer for the residents. Safer for pedestrians. Safer for school children. Safer for cyclists. Tatnam Road has become; Quieter for residents. Quieter for pedestrians. Quieter for school children. Quieter for cyclists. There is less pollution. There are less fumes. No HGV's. No Boy Racers. Less litter. Keep it closed.

Statement from a Local Resident:

Before the road closure there was excessive speeding and aggressive driving. Even the speed limit reduction from 30 to 20, with signage! made no difference. Since the closure, safety and residential life has dramatically improved with less risk of severe accidents, reduced noise, and pollution. Also increased cyclist and pedestrian use. However, some speeding motorcyclists still ignore the closure. With over 20 years of residents raising many issues about the safety of Tatnam Road, it is only possible to understand the dramatic change, if you are a resident. The only sensible decision is for the road to remain closed, permanently.

Statement from Mr Roger and Mrs Gillian Green:

We are extremely concerned this closure may be removed. It is in complete opposition to the general direction we’re being encouraged to travel by government, and disregards the health and wellbeing of residents. Passing vehicles created raising pollution levels, unacceptable noise, and considerable danger for pedestrians, cyclists, pets, and children. This is a residential road which became a cut through for many, including emergency vehicles travelling far too fast. There wasn’t provision for cyclists, or to cross the road, despite two large schools, or enforcement of the 20mph  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.