Agenda and minutes

Overview and Scrutiny Board
Monday, 23rd September, 2019 4.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Bridge Street, Christchurch BH23 1AZ. View directions

Contact: Claire Johnston  Email:


No. Item



To receive any apologies for absence from Members.


The Democratic Services Officer reported that Cllr S Bartlett had replaced Cllr N Brooks on the Board


Apologies were received from Cllr S Bartlett, Cllr M Brooke, Cllr G Farquhar, Cllr M Greene, Cllr M Iyengar and Cllrs P Miles and C Rigby for part of the meeting


Substitute Members

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. 




Notification was received from the relevant group leaders or their nominated representatives of the following substitutes: Cllr R Burton substituted for Cllr M Brooke, Cllr D Mellor substituted for Cllr M Greene, Cllr B Dove substituted for Cllr M Iyengar and Cllr L Lewis substituted for Cllr G Farquhar.


Declarations of Interests

Councillors are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council's Code of Conduct regarding Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.


Councillors are also required to disclose any other interests where a Councillor is a member of an external body or organisation where that membership involves a position of control or significant influence, including bodies to which the Council has made the appointment in line with the Council's Code of Conduct.


Declarations received will be reported at the meeting.





Public Speaking

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:- 

The deadline for the submission of public questions is Monday 16 September 2019.

The deadline for the submission of a statement is 12.00 noon, Friday 20 September 2019.

The deadline for the submission of a petition is 12.00 noon, Friday 20 September 2019.


The Democratic Services Officer advised that no questions, statements or petitions had been received by the required deadline. However, there were a number of requests to speak in relation to the agenda item on 5G.


Call for Evidence - 5G Connectivity pdf icon PDF 172 KB

To consider a report which outlines the process for the call for evidence on 5G connectivity. 

The Board will receive verbal submissions from any interested parties as part of the call for evidence.

Members of the public wishing to speak are asked to submit their intention to do so in advance to by 12 noon Friday 20 September 2019.

Additional documents:



The Chairman introduced the item and reminded everyone that the purpose of this session was to hear verbal submissions as part of the call for evidence. There was also an opportunity for any interested parties to make written submissions on the issue, the closing date for written submissions was 7 October. The Board would then consider the responses to the Call-for evidence further at its meeting in November.


The following persons had registered to speak:


·         John Hunt (on behalf of Susan Lennon) – West Howe Community Association

·         Nick Greenwood

·         Charles Ross Illingworth

·         David Merefield

·         Anthony Story – Silicon South

·         Marios Angelopoulos – Bournemouth University – Computing

·         Adrian Dwyer

·         Sam Crowe – Director of Public Health Dorset


The speakers spoke on a range of issues both in favour of the roll out of 5G and against it. A number of issues were raised including:

·         The apparent lack of accountability regarding the instillation of fibre optics in Bournemouth;

·         The development of 5G through weapons technology;

·         Secrecy concerning 5G;

·         Omissions and inaccuracies in various official reports on 5G;

·         Studies evidencing health impacts and concerns in relation to 5G technology;

·         Consideration of alternative technologies to 5G;

·         Insurance unable to cover illnesses in relation to 5G technology;

·         Impact of 5G technology on the environment and wildlife;

·         International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines;

·         Concern of a rise in cancer and other illnesses, a link to brain and heart tumours, radiation through 5G high frequencies and infertility;

·         Out of date and inaccurate health reports being used;

·         Request for 5G moratorium from leading scientists and doctors;

·         Towns in the UK having adopted 5G moratoria, high profile cities across Europe had also adopted moratoria on 5G;

·         Geneva reversed its 5G rollout after people falling ill;

·         BCP area was well served in alternatives to 5G such as fibre optics;

·         Decision making driven by machines rather than humans;

·         Concern that Council’s were responding to publicity material and promoting technology above people;

·         Public Health England were falling behind in their advice and effects would only become apparent afterwards;

·         People should be allowed to consent and take precautionary measures;

·         5G trials were already taking place in cities around the country and BCP Council needed to keep up;

·         There were economic and development opportunities through 5G;

·         5G would improve social outcomes and quality of life;

·         The divide between the digital and tech sectors would merge together

·         The various sectors within BCP were well placed to support 5G technology;

·         5G will change how we share and consume information;

·         There were a number of different technologies which will make up 5G;

·         New technology would be commissioned and deployed for 5G;

·         Technology needed for 5G;

·         The amount of information able to be handled by a 5G network;

·         Ability to do things not previously possible and tackle new problems;

·         Job creation opportunities due to 5G;

·         Improvements to the local economy with 5G developments and the need to attract high tech industries to the area;

·         The frequency of 5G in the Lansdowne area should be no concern  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.


Scrutiny of Environment Related Cabinet Reports

To consider the following environment related report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 30 September:


·         Christchurch Waste Collection Service


The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the report 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 will be published on Friday 20 September 2019 and available to view at the following link:



Management of Waste and Cleansing Services in Christchurch from April 2020 – The Portfolio Holder introduced the report and explained that from 1 April 2020 BCP would be responsible for operating these services. An interim solution was proposed at option 3 within the report which would be in place whilst a strategic review of cleansing and waste services across BCP was completed which would be in line with new legislation being introduced in 2023. The Portfolio Holder was asked a number of questions on the report including:


·         What the life span of waste collection vehicles in the current fleet was. It was noted that the life of the average vehicle was 7 years. The Poole fleet would be renewed on a rolling cycle. Dorset vehicles were at the end of their life and investment was being sought for this.

·         Whether waste was collected from outside the BCP area at the Wilverly Road household recycling centre. The contract for this site was currently managed through the Dorset Waste Partnership and runs until 2024.

·         Whether there was a net financial benefit to the proposals. The cost took into account the mixed collection of glass rather than separately but collected separately this would have a higher value.

·         What the driver behind the proposals was – environmental or financial. It was explained that it was a balance between environmental impact and financial impact.

·         Why such a small step towards harmonisation and why food waste collection was not being implemented in Poole. It was estimated that 25% - 30% of residual waste was food waste. There was a balance between the cost of implementing a food waste collection before the government waste review outcome. It was a pragmatic step to focus on recycling in Christchurch.

·         The environmental impact of not separating glass. Less vehicles would be needed for collection and the majority of glass can be withdrawn.

·         What the timescale was for a full review of the waste collection service. The government consultation would need to be factored in and with the number of staff and new structures required as well as existing contracts in pace it was expected that it would take 2-3 years.

·         Whether a single waste collection service was a priority. The Portfolio Holder responded that the environment was at the heart of everything she did. Food waste would be a high priority going forward. However, it was more important to reduce food waste than to collect it.

·         Whether green waste collections would be harmonised across BCP. Proposals for the green waste collection were contained in another paper and the cost for this service outlined there. Bournemouth residents were able to have two bins for a reduced price but would be paying more per litre.

·         How the proposals in the report would sync with the people strategy. IT was noted that staff would be subject to the pay and grading policies across BCP.


The Board discussed harmonisation arrangements for waste collection and disposal and the existing contracts in place and when harmonisation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.


Scrutiny of Regeneration Related Cabinet reports

To consider the following regeneration related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 30 September:


·         Happyland Site - Establishment of joint venture with Meyrick Estate (TBC)

·         Lansdowne Dorset Local Enterprise Funded Place Making

·         Wessex Fields


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 Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture.


The Cabinet reports will be published on Friday 20 September 2019 and available to view at the following link:



Happyland, East Undercliff Promenade – Grant of Lease – The Portfolio Holder introduced the report explaining that thus was the outcome of a scheme which was worked up mostly under the previous administration of Bournemouth Borough Council. The current building was structurally supporting the cliff and the building was starting to fail. Options for addressing the problem were outlined and the option preferred was to establish a special purpose vehicle (SPV) by the Meyrick Estate to grant a lease to the nominee of the SPV. The Council would grant a 150 year lease for a small annual rent, this would be conditional upon the grant of planning permission for the site. It was noted that whilst it may have been preferable for the Council to retain control of the site there was not a viable ‘inhouse’ option for development. In the following discussion a number of issues were raised by the Board including:


·         It being a prime site for development to provide for aspirations for a modern seafront;

·         The size of the proposed hotel on the site. A hotel was not necessarily proposed. A building suitable for the site would be sought.

·         Whether a lift would be installed. A developer would want to maximise space. A new lift would be required if the walkway was removed.

·         There was no reference in the report to the Council’s seafront strategy;

·         The freeholders and the Council would not necessarily align;

·         There appeared to be a lack of consultation with ward Members and also with trade and industry. The Portfolio Holder commented that he was committed to consultation and wanted to be in a position to see business coming through but that the report was presented to him with a decision between two options required.

·         The Monitoring Officer confirmed that following external legal device the options for the Council to approve the plans for the site risked a public procurement challenge.


The Chairman hoped that the Council would do everything possible to ensure a good development on the site and the Portfolio hoped that with future plans there would be extensive consultation.


Lansdowne – The Portfolio Holder introduced the report and explained that this was a long-term project of Bournemouth Borough Council. The Vision for Lansdowne would promote sustainable travel and deliver on a number of different Council priorities. It would create a better flow between Bournemouth train station, the town centre and the seafront.


A Member asked about reprovisioning the public toilets which were submerged at Lansdowne Roundabout. These were not part of the scheme but the Portfolio Holder confirmed that he would like to see more public toilets across the conurbation. However, the toilets at Lansdowne had been out of use for a long time.


A Member commented that the paper was really transformative and the area around Lansdowne was seeing lot of change.


The Chairman asked about the next steps for the scheme and for assurance that the proposals be fast tracked to be delivered by 2021. Over view and Scrutiny  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.


Overview and Scrutiny Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 91 KB

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

Additional documents:



It was noted that there was a new Cabinet Forward Plan published. The Chair and Vice-Chair would look whether any items should be added to the Board’s agenda. The Chairman asked that if any Board member had an item they wished to put on a future agenda they email him with the request.


Future Meeting Dates

To note the future meeting dates arranged for the Board as follows:


7 October 2019 - start time and venue TBC


The following meetings are planned to begin at 6.00pm, venues tbc:


11 November 2019

9 December 2019

13 January 2020

10 February 2020

16 March 2020

20 April 2020




It was noted that with potentially 15 items going to the next Cabinet meeting it was likely that there would need to be two Overview and Scrutiny Board meetings to cover the issues requiring Scrutiny. These would both start at 10.00am on Friday 4 October and Monday 7 October.