Agenda item

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 in Part 4D (Meeting Procedure Rules) of the Constitution:-

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.

(a)           Public Questions

Public Question from Adam Osman

We know that we need to act radically to combat the effects of climate change, I’d also like to highlight the 100 cyclists killed per year in the UK. We know we need to halve the number of miles driven in order to meet climate change goals, even if we switch all cars to EVs. In order to combat this in the most cost-efficient way possible, a 20mph speed limit would encourage more cycle journeys and pay dividends in public health through air quality and fewer fatalities. You have a 1 in 10 chance of dying at 20mph, 1 in 4 at 30mph. How can we justify 4 times more deaths, especially when a lower speed limit has been empirically proven to reduce average journey times.

Will BCP implement a 20mph default speed limit? Further to this, will you listen to the recommendations of the upcoming community assembly on 20mph?

Response by Councillor Millie Earl, Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Connected Communities

Adam, thanks for your summary of the benefits of 20MPH as a default speed limit, and your questions.  

20mph by default in our built up urban area would be beneficial to people walking, wheeling and cycling, and as you highlight also benefit public health and air quality.  

I represent Newtown & Heatherlands ward in Poole and we have seen the benefits of a large scale 20mph speed limit which was introduced in 2010 and extended in subsequent years to cover almost the whole ward. I would like to see other communities able to benefit from a safer and healthier environment, like we have. 

Parties forming the Three Towns Alliance highlighted an intention to improve road safety by implementing 20mph speed limits in more areas or as the default speed limit, in our election material. Many other urban areas across the country are ahead of us in making progress. It is important that we have collaboration from Dorset Police in enforcing speed limits, and we are working with them on means to improve that for 20mph zones.  

So will BCP implement a 20mph default speed limit? Yes, that is our intention. There will be some roads that are exempt, on the basis of need and capacity. It is also likely that rollout will take some time, working alongside communities and finding a means to funding such a widespread change. 

Will we listen to the recommendations of the upcoming community assembly on 20mph? We are keen to hear views from the whole community on proposed changes, but we will be pleased to receive the output from your assembly deliberations, and I’m grateful for the efforts of volunteers to engage in the debate. 

I would also add that we have a meeting later this week with representatives of the ‘20’s Plenty for Us’ organisation so we can learn from the experience of other places who have implemented change. 

Public Question from Ralph Doe

In March 2023 there was an oil spill in Poole Harbour resulting in temporary restrictions on fishing and the consumption of fish and shellfish from the harbour, and leisure activities in the harbour.

No official report has yet been made available to the general public in spite of early promises to the contrary. Nine months have now passed.

In view of BCP council’s and businesses’ reliance on revenues from tourism I would like to know what measures BCP council has taken to:

1)     Ensure that oil spills will not impact leisure activities and tourism in the area

2)     Monitor oil production and exploration in Poole Harbour and Bournemouth Bay

3)     Engage with relevant authorities, the Environment Agency, the Poole Harbour Commissioners and Dorset County Council to ensure they carry out their tasks with due diligence and communicate their findings to the general public.

Response by Councillor Andy Hadley, Portfolio Holder for Climate Response, Environment and Energy

Ralph, thank you for your question. BCP Council were a supporting agency in the multi-agency response to the oil-spill, and we were able to render particular experience and assistance in the use of our flood and coastal erosion team’s drones to help assess the spread and in loaning a press officer to Poole Harbour Commissioner’s as the organisation with the lead responsibility in the incident response.

You asked what measures BCP Council has taken to ensure the oil-spills will not impact leisure activities and tourism in the area. Dorset Council leads on licensing the Wytch Farm works since it sits within their planning area. The Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive have continued to investigate the circumstances of the leak and we will continue to raise relevant questions on behalf of residents and tourists to the area.

As part of the local resilience forum, BCP Council has played a significant role in the multi-agency incident management and recovery groups. The containment of the spill was in no small part aided by prior planning from all those partners involved.

The second part of your question was how will we monitor oil production and exploration in Poole Harbour and Poole Bay. BCP Council are involved directly in the monitoring of shellfish in the harbour and we will work with other agencies, particularly through Dorset Council as the lead authority on monitoring the operation of the Perenco Wytch Farm works around the harbour. Offshore exploration in Poole Bay is separately overseen by the Marine Management organisation.

BCP Council, myself and officers work closely with our colleagues at Dorset Council to ensure on-going monitoring of the operation as part of licensing conditions of their operation.

The third part of your question was how we engage with relevant authorities to ensure they carry out their tasks and communicate their findings to the general public. Communications have been key throughout the incident response. Our officers continue to be involved with the local resilience forum response to the oil-spill with a multi-agency recovery co-ordination group which has been meeting since the incident happened in March 2023 and sub-groups focusing on health and community, environment, business and economy. These have overseen the recovery through joint working with the agencies mentioned ensuring they carry out their tasks and where appropriate communicate findings to the public. We will continue to be engaged with planning for any future perceived risks to the delicate eco-systems around the harbour and with on-going remediation work which is helping to inform the Environment Agency’s investigations into the cause of the spill and their determination on whether any enforcement actions will follow. When relevant, this will revert to usual business for both councils and the recovery coordination group will be stood down.

We have been invited to join the Wytch Farm Well-sites Local Liaison Groups and coincidentally I attended the first one of those this morning since 2019. That group has met and intends to meet every six months. I have been asking for any updates and outcomes from the Environment Agency’s findings to be communicated to the public as and when they become available. Because there is still possible enforcement or legal action this has not been possible to date.

Public Question from Susan Chapman

BCP's local plan does its best with the disgraceful, hopelessly inadequate policies of our climate-illiterate, genocidally-denying government.

Our biosphere is in deep trouble. Our youngsters will have an unbelievably difficult future as systems fail, ecosystems fail, migration and resource wars accelerate and the natural world collapses.

All hands on deck are overdue. We must all help to Salvage and Survive, what we can, while we can.

Please can BCP without further delay share the Mauna Loa data and explain its accelerating significance, as well as the need to collectively find better support systems than fossil fuels and other dangerous practices, in a leaflet to go to all council tax payers, to all Heads and Leaders and to be shared sensitively with all pupils and their parents?

Response by Councillor Andy Hadley, Portfolio Holder for Climate Response, Environment and Energy

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Sue, for your question and request. And thank you for acknowledging the progress of our local plan work, especially the debate at the recent Overview and Scrutiny Board last month highlighting the challenges in attempting to raise the standards of construction whilst we face a crisis in particular to get developers responding to the needs for young people to find secure and affordable homes. There is a small cost premium to ensuring that at least our new housing stock is better equipped for energy efficiency and resilience to more extreme climate events. And we should be trying to achieve that. As you rightly point out, the present government are undermining progress on climate mitigation.

The Mauna Loa data that you highlight is taken at an observatory in Hawaii that has plotted the global Atmospheric C02 levels continuously since 1957. It shows the continuing climb in CO2 over the last 75 years, well past the ambitions to limit global warming, and it corroborates other research.

Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases (noaa.gov)
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

Despite all the meetings and promises for global action since the concerns were first raised in the 1991 Rio Earth summit and the alarms raised by you and others locally, this inexorable rise is a huge concern. And it manifests locally in warmer weather with more extreme rainfall events, as we've seen very recently over Christmas. In engaging on the issue with families and children in particular, another concerned local grandmother has been working tirelessly to share information in an accessible format with schools and via our library service. Her book and teaching guide is called "Planet Earth Needs Our Help."

The updated annual climate plan will be coming to the Environment and Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the spring, which will include our role in informing and educating the public, and we are also reviewing measures relating to our carbon emissions through our corporate performance reports as they are refreshed for 2024/25. We do need to improve our public engagement with the climate and ecological crisis via a variety of means, and we do take that challenge seriously. The threat should be a core concern for everyone living in the BCP area to take personal action. We are beyond avoiding climate change, and indeed, salvage and survive sums up the task for us all. Thank you.

Public Question from Daniel Parkin

Following BCP local plan working party meeting, 5th October, travellers site was allocated at Branksome Triangle within Talbot and Branksome Wood ward.

Please confirm which other sites were previously in this plan and removed? Why were these sites considered unsuitable and replaced by Branksome Triangle, where concerns such as site entrance isn’t suitable, and a fence will not protect the SNCI.

Why was this site suddenly considered more suitable when previous planning applications have been declined?

Why was this area included at such short notice when the LP commenced in 2019? Were minutes taken in that meeting, as I understand an officer stated ‘well it has to go somewhere’.

Please confirm whether ‘gagging’ orders were given to the working party, and why?

Response by Councillor Vikki Slade, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Dynamic Places

Thank you for your question.   

The new BCP Local Plan is required to provide for our local population and this includes our Gypsy and Traveller population.  The council has an existing site for those members of this community who live in specialist accommodation rather than traditional homes and like all populations their future generations are entitled to homes.  A local plan that does not include provision for them would be thrown out by the Inspector as it would not be ‘sound’.  

I should stress that these homes are quite different from the need for a transit site or temporary stopping place which are not required under the local plan but their provision does enable the police to do their work in responding to unauthorised encampments. 

We never had any sites previously. No sites were promoted to us by private landowners and there were no planning applications for permanent gypsy and traveller sites which were declined. There was a planning application for a transit site in the Green Belt but this was refused and we have chosen a strategy whereby we do not release Green Belt. So, in summer 2023 we turned to our Council landholding for potential sites. We assessed several sites and the preferred site was the Branksome Triangle. The site meets all the relevant criteria with its own access, with limited impact on neighbouring homes and without other restrictions.   

The site was in use during the early discussions but was handed back with vacant possession. 

The Local Plan Working Group was set up to enable Councillors from across the political spectrum to guide the preparation of the local plan. There are no gagging orders but it would be inappropriate for a Councillor to share a privileged information with the public whilst a strategy is being prepared. 

Public Question from Alexia Parkin – asked by Daniel Parkin

This is in relation to allocation of employment land at Talbot Heath.

It is my understanding that there may be a common consensus from cross party councillors to the left of me, that employment land should be removed completely, from this site, and hope those in favour of protecting the environment and the many species involved, may support my concerns tonight.

Why does the Council feel the need to completely encircle one of BCP Council’s flagship SSSI nature reserves, with the very real potential of net losses in biodiversity with no real accountability. Do you believe you can redesign nature by deliberately ignoring the significance of how the established habitats of that whole area are interdependent and the reason why wildlife is thriving. The reduction in the land allocation does not protect the heath at all, so the compromise is worthless.

Also, where have the employment numbers come from and why allow planning permission to convert other commercial units into residential units if employment needs are to be met in the region. This is an SSSI area - not an industrial park.

Response by Vikki Slade, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Dynamic Places

The BCP Local Plan is required to meet development needs for employment land and providing employment land helps support local businesses and gives local people job opportunities. 

The amount of employment land required is calculated through an established methodology considering housing requirements and economic forecasts that has to be robust and defendable at the Local Plan examination.  

We have got policies within the Local Plan to protect existing employment sites but some existing commercial units have been lost to residential uses through the government’s permitted development legislation which allows for these changes of use without the need for full planning permission. This has largely impacted dated office stock. 

The land at Talbot Village will help us meet our employment needs, ensure a choice of employment sites exists across the area (rather than over reliance on the airport business parks) and supports our universities and the potential for graduates to set up businesses in the local area.  

We have worked closely with Natural England to ensures that will be no harm to Talbot Heath. The biodiversity impacts have been carefully considered and that the proposals can achieve an overall net gain in biodiversity.  To resolve concerns raised by the public and councillors we have halved the land area from 9.8 to 4.7 hectares to create larger buffer to the heathland.  

Public Question from Harriet Stewart-Jones – read by the Chief Executive

Will the Council please remove the final 4.7 hectares of employment allocation from Highmoor Farm, Talbot Village in the draft BCP Local Plan? These fields have been shown to be functionally linked to the internationally important and irreplaceable Talbot Heath and are essential to protect this area - the precious green heart of our town. There is no proven need for this extra new employment space.

Many thousands of local residents, including cross-party councillors, are dismayed to see that this ill-considered allocation has been carried forward into the new Local Plan.

Response by Councillor Vikki Slade, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Dynamic Places

Thank you for your question the answer to which is broadly the same as the previous question.  This site has already been allocated and agreed through a Government Inspection process through the Poole Local Plan.  

It is crucial that land for employment is spread across the three towns to ensure that it is accessible and offers land for a range of employment types. This is a very important part of BCP’s available overall employment land. 

Previously the allocation was just under 10ha. 

We have listened to the concerns raised by some local residents and in trying to reach a compromise have now reduced it to 4.7ha retaining for employment land the part which is furthest from the heathland.   

It should also be noted that the whole area was allocated for employment land under the Poole Local Plan and as such a planning application was submitted to develop the whole site.  This is now the subject of an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.  

A further update on the situation relating to this site will be provided at the planning committee next week. 

The appeal will be considered against the current 2018 Poole Local Plan. It is highly unlikely that the new BCP Local Plan will be given much consideration because there are objections to the allocation and the plan won’t be adopted before the planning appeal is determined. 

Public Question from Andrew Jolley – read by the Chief Executive

Has the council done any impact assessment or consultation on reducing the schools block funding transfer by 11%, because such a cut will likely bankrupt most schools in the area?

How can the council be certain there will be new SEND provision built locally and in a reasonable timeframe, given Free schools need sponsors, take years to process and are beholden to DfE granting permission and providing funds?

How are the public supposed to have faith in a Children’s services department who produce and publish a plan where the number one risk is that it can’t all be delivered legally?

Response by Councillor Richard Burton, Portfolio Holder for Childrens Services

Thank you, Mr Jolley, for your question. I am grateful for giving me the opportunity to highlight the issues that we have with the High Needs block deficit and its implications.

Although you haven’t mentioned this in your question, I am assuming that your questions have reference to the Safety Valve invite from the DfE.

There is no impact assessment on reducing the schools block funding transfer by 11% as such a transfer is not an option that the Council can impose. Any transfer greater than 0.5% requires both the agreement of the Schools Forum and the Secretary of State, although the Secretary of State does have a power to override the schools forum.

This was discussed at the last Schools forum as we need to demonstrate, to the DfE, that all avenues to reduce the growing High Needs Block deficit have been explored. The Schools Forum on 13 December 2023 agreed that only surplus schools block funding could be transferred to support the high needs budget and all schools should receive their national funding formula allocations in full.

A further meeting with school’s forum is to take place 15 January where we are looking at all of the options. The Council cannot take 11% from the Schools block, but the Sec of State could make that decision, and he will be aware that is an option. We have illustrated the impact of that in our modelling which we have shared with the DfE and their advisors.

The maximum 0.5% transfer has been happening regularly over the preceding years and is very likely to continue.

As a result of the debate at Schools Forum, there are now schools that are looking at other ways that they can help ease the financial pressure on the deficit separately from any transfer.

The Council has already started work on putting in bids for new Free Schools. A very good bid was put in last year, which was liked by the DfE, however they went with a private sector bid. Another bid will be submitted later this week. You are quite right in saying that we are beholding to DfE vagaries, as we are with the inadequate funding that we receive for the High Needs Block from central government. However, the only way to provide good opportunities for pupils who need specialist provision is to expand places in the maintained sector and we have no alternative but to follow the correct procedures to achieve this.

BCP Children’s Services department have not published a plan as described above. What I believe that you are referring to is “Scenario 1 – DSG management plan with rapid balancing” again from the Schools Forum 13 December 2023. This scenario is included to demonstrate why a five-year plan isn’t achievable. It says it “is very unlikely to meet the second requirement of the mission statement, namely, to provide a good service” This scenario is not acceptable.

Later in the same document there is “Scenario 2: DSG management plan - potentially deliverable but very challenging assumptions” This is a fifteen-year plan which might be workable and doesn’t have the same level of risk.

Much of the changes proposed in scenario 2 are changes to day to day working within the department who are working primarily to facilitate better outcomes for our children and young people with SEND and at the same time delivering better value for our residents. Any capital investment into the Council, or capital expenditure by the council will, as always, be a decision made by either Cabinet or Council, depending on the amounts. There will be full opportunity for member engagement with this process and for the public to ask questions in the normal way.

(b) Public Statements

Public Statement from Joanne Keeling

Graffiti in Talbot Village underpass was reported in October. Two further reports and social media contact followed, yet lack of action prompted phone calls to BCP.  After an unsatisfactory response, assistance was requested from ward councillors and MP Conor Burns. The graffiti was cleaned the next day.

This incident should be the last of its kind. We shouldn’t live in a community where it’s acceptable for young impressionable children to walk past such abusive language and anti-semitic phrases. It’s our duty to shield vulnerable children from this. To prevent this happening again, please ask yourselves, how long is it considered acceptable between a report and any action? The failings of cleaning vehicles or lack of training doesn’t justify a delay of 3 months. What faith can the general public have in their council if they are ignored and have to enlist the help of their councillor and MP.

Public Statement from Andrew Jolley

This safety valve scheme simply kicks the deficit can down the road until after the general election.

It’s being imposed by the same Tory ministers who oversaw austerity and offers no guarantee accepting councils will avoid bankruptcy.

Safety-Valve is little more than a transfer of historic levels of debt away from Central Government, placing it squarely on our most vulnerable children and their educators for decades to come.

No one properly considered the viability or societal impact of the plan with many assumptions outside council control.

The suggestion of an eleven percent cut to school funding is particularly devastating. Be in no doubt, this will bankrupt local schools.

Decisions so damaging to future generations should not be left to unelected officials.

This lack of oversight is scandalous and deliberate.

Councillors must be able to scrutinise the proposals before it’s agreed.

Voters are entitled to know who supported and enacted this plan.

Statement from Sheila Warner

Since its establishment in 2019 BCP Council has had one Planning Committee.

The Echo quotes the Leader of the Council saying “The creation of a western BCP and an eastern BCP Planning Committee would allow for a more localised decision making process …”.

Talbot and Branksome Woods Residents Association observes that this is a transparent carving up of Bournemouth into a Poole Planning Committee and a Christchurch Committee.

If the Council considers that one Planning Committee is inadequate to serve the whole area then surely the 3 Towns Alliance, which is not a one and one third and one and two thirds Towns Alliance should be proposing 3 Planning Committees, one for each of the 3 towns.

On attending the Council’s Corporate Strategy meeting I stressed the need for unity. A Christchurch attendee aptly summed this up with “United we stand, divided we fall”.