Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Councillors.

There were no apologies received for this meeting.

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.

There were no substitute members

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.

There were no declarations of interest made on this occasion.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting held on 9 February 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 February were approved as a correct record.

To receive and consider updates to the recommendation tracker.

The recommendation tracker was circulated with the agenda for information.

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 public questions is midday 3 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.

There were no public petitions or questions. One public statement was received from Mr Stephen Tallamy and read out by the Democratic Services Officer as follows:

As a resident of Creekmoor in Poole it frustrates me that the majority of councillors, particularly Portfolio Holders are remiss when it comes to posting positive news regarding council business especially consultations on their social media accounts. Many may be reluctant to do so because of negative comments from well-known anti-everything residents but if used responsibly there is no need to engage with them. At almost every council meeting the thorny subject of "how do we get the trust of residents and better get them to engage in consultations," is raised. Well you won't get it by non-engagement, all councillors have as community representatives a duty to keep their residents updated and informed in a timely, responsible and polite fashion, so everyone of you should be proud of being resident representatives and shouldn’t be afraid of some negative feedback because that is never going to go away.

At its meeting on 18 November 2024 the Overview and Scrutiny Board agreed to establish a working group to consider the BCP Council developing Consultation Framework in response to report brought to the Board on Consultation methods and responses The group met three twice during April and May 2025.  Subsequently, the Board requested the working group to broaden its original remit to include an examination of recent consultations and examples of previous consultations, with a view to identifying any lessons that could be applied to future practice. The working group met a further 4 times from September to December to undertake this task and formulate recommendations to improve issues around consultations. The findings of the working group and detail explaining the rationale behind the recommendations which the Working Group have formulated are summarised in the appendix to this report.

The Lead Member of the Working Group 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.  It was explained that at its meeting on 18 November 2024 the Overview and Scrutiny Board agreed to establish a working group to consider the BCP Council developing Consultation Framework in response to the report brought to the Board on Consultation methods and responses Subsequently, the Board requested the working group broaden its original remit to include an examination of recent consultations and examples of previous consultations, with a view to identifying any lessons that could be applied to future practice. The findings of the working group and detail explaining the rationale behind the recommendations which the Working Group had formulated were presented to the Board. The officers who supported the working group and the relevant portfolio holder also addressed the Board. There were a number of points raised in discussion of this issue including:

• Managing expectations: It was emphasised that expectation?setting was crucial, particularly where views will be divided; caution was advised regarding councillor commentary on social media during live consultations.
• Notification for ward members: Several members stated that 24?hour notice had sometimes been experienced and that longer lead?in was necessary for effective local engagement. Members asked for sufficient detail prior to launch and not merely awareness that a consultation would occur.
• Councillor conduct: Concerns were expressed about online conduct and misinformation. It was noted that Councillor behaviour is governed by the Code of Conduct and Standards processes, with limited sanctions; the working group had focused on improving methodology rather than policing conduct. 
• Confidentiality: A suggestion to withdraw early?notification privileges from any councillor who breached confidentiality was raised; officers cautioned this would be impractical to operate and outside the consultation team’s remit, suggesting any such measures belong with conduct/standards governance
• Clear framing on survey purpose: Members supported prominent explanation that consultations inform, but do not decide, and suggested link?through to the published framework; a “tick acknowledgement” was discussed as a possible nudge to improve comprehension. Officers agreed to incorporate clearer front?end statements upon framework approval.
• Representative Sampling / Citizens’ Panel: Clarification was provided that a Citizens’ Panel (distinct from a Citizens’ Assembly) would be a representative sample recruited via professional methods (e.g., telephone/online sampling and face?to?face intercepts), used alongside open consultations for surveys/focus groups to reach broader, less polarised views. Cost and methodology (including mobile recruitment and geographic/demographic spread) were noted.
• Method and engagement: Members advocated creative, hands?on approaches (e.g., participatory budgeting exercises) to help residents understand trade?offs, noting past local examples and recent panel work on town centre priorities that used budget?reallocation scenarios.
• Question Design: It was proposed that the framework state explicitly that questions would be meaningful and capable of informing decisions (not merely objective/non?leading). Officers undertook to review the draft to ensure this intent is explicit.
• Professional standards:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

This paper sets out elements of development and delivery by ‘Safer BCP’, the BCP Community Safety Partnership (CSP), and its constituent agencies. It provides Members with an update since the last report to Overview and Scrutiny Panel in January 2025.

The Local Government Act 2000 includes crime and disorder scrutiny as one of the functions the council must ensure its scrutiny arrangements cover. Sections 19 and 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and related regulations require the Council to have a committee with the functions of reviewing and scrutinising decisions and actions in respect of the discharge of crime and disorder functions by “responsible authorities”.

The specifics of the duty are set out in the Police and Justice Act 2006, which also allows members to refer any “local crime and disorder matter” raised with them by anyone living or working in their area, to the Crime and Disorder Committee. The Board designated as the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee must meet at least once every 12-month period to conduct the functions.

Guidance issued concerning how this role should be conducted include that:

• the role should be one of a critical friend, providing constructive challenge at a strategic level.

• the focus should be on the entire partnership and if issues arise that relate specifically to a particular partner agency, it may be more appropriate to refer such issues to the governing bodies of that organisation.

• the scrutiny of partners should be “in so far as their activities relate to the partnership itself.”

In the BCP area, the Overview and Scrutiny Board undertakes this function each December/January.

The presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix '?' to these Minutes in the Minute Book. The Board considered the paper which sets out elements of development and delivery by ‘Safer BCP’, the BCP Community Safety Partnership (CSP), and its constituent agencies. It provided Members with an update since the last report to Overview and Scrutiny Panel in January 2025. The Board was reminded that the Local Government Act 2000 includes crime and disorder scrutiny as one of the functions the council must ensure its scrutiny arrangements cover and the Board had been designated as the appropriate body for this function. The CSP’s statutory partners and duties were outlined, including strategic assessment, plan/monitoring, information sharing, reducing re?offending/substance misuse, and commissioning of Domestic Homicide Reviews. The priorities for 2025/26 were outlined, as reducing serious violence; reducing violence against women and girls; and reducing ASB and crime hot spots. There had been a general downward trend in sexual assaults, domestic abuse incidents, personal robbery, and knife crime. Reported ASB had decreased year?on?year. The Board was informed of the future work for the CSP which included continued funding for domestic abuse services and serious violence interventions; a national review of CSPs and impacts of forthcoming legislation were anticipated. Executive. A number of issues were discussed by the Board including:

• ASB reporting and data confidence: Assurance was sought that reduced figures did not simply reflect barriers to reporting. Dorset Police described actions to improve reporting confidence, while maintaining hotspot?led patrols, noted likely increases as confidence improves, and highlighted targeted operations.
• E?scooters/E?bikes: Members queried legality and retail practices. It was explained that rental e?scooters operated under authorised schemes with speed caps and licence checks, whereas privately owned e?scooters remained unlawful on public roads. Calls for national legislative clarity were noted.
• Noisy motorcycles / late?night nuisance: Concerns about specific corridors were raised. Police encouraged continued reporting to inform planned operations, outlined limitations of certain tactics for motorcycles, and described new tagging/spray tactics to support later identification. Use of ANPR where plates are visible was referenced.
• Community Patrol Groups: Questions were raised about an unregulated community group operating locally. Police stated that such entities were not endorsed due to concerns with operating models. The Council reported ongoing dialogue aimed at signposting to proper governance, safeguarding and insurance standards, whilst reiterating that commissioned/specialist services should not be replaced by unregulated activity.
• Future Changes and Scrutiny: It was observed that CSP arrangements may change significantly over the next 12 months as national policy develops. The Board indicated an intention to schedule future scrutiny of any proposed changes once guidance is clearer.
• Community cohesion: In response to questions, officers outlined a new externally funded community cohesion role to work with diverse communities, counter misinformation, progress the hate crime action plan, expand third?party reporting, and develop education resources with schools.
• Domestic abuse: An increase in high?risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

BCP Council conducted a Department for Transport (DfT)authorised trial in August 2025 to test whether increasing Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) levels and associated charges to London?equivalent rates would improve compliance and reduce illegal parking in the coastal area from Sandbanks to Hengistbury Head. The trial showed a reversal of the expected rise in contraventions, with overall PCNs decreasing against forecast models, alongside reductions in serious on?street breaches and improvements in bus punctuality. No negative impact on visitor numbers was identified, and parking capacity remained consistently available, suggesting most illegal parking had been by choice rather than necessity. Some behavioural displacement occurred into lower?level car park contraventions, and peak?pressure days still presented challenges. Overall, the trial demonstrated that higher PCN levels can effectively improve compliance, with BCP Council recommending either a national review of PCN rates outside London or a wider, longer?term follow?up trial.

The Portfolio Holder for Cabinet Member for Destination, Leisure and Commercial Operations 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. The Board was advised that the Council conducted a Department for Transport (DfT)authorised trial in August 2025 to test whether increasing Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) levels and associated charges to London?equivalent rates would improve compliance and reduce illegal parking in the coastal area from Sandbanks to Hengistbury Head. The trial showed a reversal of the expected rise in contraventions, with overall PCNs decreasing against forecast models, alongside reductions in serious on?street breaches and improvements in bus punctuality. No negative impact on visitor numbers was identified, and parking capacity remained consistently available, suggesting most illegal parking had been by choice rather than necessity. Some behavioural displacement occurred into lower?level car park contraventions, and peak?pressure days still presented challenges. Overall, the trial demonstrated that higher PCN levels can effectively improve compliance, with BCP Council recommending either a national review of PCN rates outside London or a wider, longer?term follow?up trial. A number of points were discussed by the Board including:

• Potential Future Scope: It was asked that any extension cover the whole BCP area and run longer (to capture school?term impacts). The Cabinet Member indicated that any further trial sought from the DfT should be BCP?wide and for an extended period.
• DfT decision?making: Members asked whether a national uplift or a further local trial would be pursued and when. The Board was informed that the evidence?led officer report with two feasible recommendations, a national rates uplift or a further extended local trial, had been submitted to the DfT. The Cabinet report was provided for the findings to be noted and to publicly support the approach; follow?up representations to the DfT were planned once the DfT had digested the report.
• Strength of recommendation: Members urged the strongest case be made that the tested uplift should form the baseline for either option presented. Officers acknowledged that London rates may change from April and that alignment to London is the likely ceiling outside London.
• Measurement: Questions were raised about whether “success” reflected tickets issued or contraventions occurring. Officers stated that the relevant metric was contraventions, with officer productivity per hour steady year?on?year; higher counts on bank?holiday days reflected increased demand pressures, whereas the overall period evidenced reduction.
• CEO Capacity: Approximately 55 FTE Civil Enforcement Officers were in post against a structure of roughly 60–65.
• Resident/visitor information: The approach to informing visitors included on?site posters, entry?point notices, radio and press was outlined. The absence of unusual challenge rates suggested effective communication.
• Interaction with the Parking Strategy: Members asked how the trial feeds into the emerging Parking Strategy. It was stated that evidence of improved compliance at higher penalty levels informs assumptions about effective enforcement and the role of restrictions.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

The Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Board is asked to consider and identify work priorities for publication in a Work Plan.

The Chair of the Board 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. The Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Board was asked to consider and identify work priorities for publication in a Work Plan. The ongoing work?programming exercise was noted and the outcomes from this were expected to be reported to the next meeting. The next meeting was scheduled to focus on parking: both the early draft Parking Strategy and a rapporteur report on parking enforcement around schools. Engagement with schools and the local bus operator for that item was being arranged. A suggestion to hear directly from a headteacher was welcomed.

RESOLVED: That the O&S Board work plan be noted.