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 12 noon, 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.
Minutes:
Cabinet was advised that there had been no petitions submitted but that two questions and one statement had been received by members of the public, all relating to Agenda Item 8 (Consultation on the Draft BCP Local Plan and the Draft BCP CIL Charging Schedule).
Public Question received from Conor O’Luby
"The draft Local Plan appears ambitious in tackling the climate emergency, putting environmental and sustainable transport priorities at its heart. Seeking to protect the footprint of the discredited A338-Wessex Fields flyover, a scheme which will massively promote car use clearly suggests 'greenwashing', however. Will the Cabinet commit to removing 'g.' at Policy E5?"
Response by the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Dynamic Places
Proposed Policy E5 Wessex Fields criterion (g) as currently drafted in the BCP Local Plan requires any development of the Wessex Fields site to safeguard the footprint of approved grade separated junction on the Wessex Way.
The current administration is clear that a flyover is not to be pursued.
However it is sensible to protect the land from being built upon and safeguard it for possible future highway purposes.
There are highways solutions within the safeguarded land that could be explored to open up the Wessex Fields site for employment opportunities which could improve the current situation on the heavily congested Castle Lane East.
Various options will need to be explored, but it does not mean that the Council has to use them. Safeguarding the land protects our ability to explore these options.
To show our commitment to explore all options we propose altering the criterion to state ‘safeguard land adjacent to the A338 for highways purposes’, removing any reference to a grade separated junction.
Public Question from Soo Chapman (Read out by Democratic Services)
The King, the Pope, global scientists, the IEA, the UN? & numerous authoritative bodies, advise humanity to avoid triggering climate collapse and the imminent loss of all we love.
Yet escalating carbonic destruction, with its grave implications for harvests and conflict, is underplayed by BCP whose climate guru's serious 89 page alert of 2022 is invisible.
The hopeless inadequacy of governmental policies is now being exposed and citizens need assurances that proper plans for collective well-being are in place as we raise ambition for a healthy, restored biosphere.??
In line with the Nolan principles of honesty and transparency please can Cabinet assure the public concerned for the welfare of the #Fridays4Future generation that anachronistic policy E5 subsection g is struck out and that the government's Sixth Carbon Budget is published widely as a matter of public literacy and safety??
Response by the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Dynamic Places
In response to that question, the first part of the question is exactly the same as the previous question so I don’t intend to read that out again. But in terms of the second part I don’t believe that it is the Councils responsibility to publish the governments sixth carbon budget, that is something that is available for people online if they wish to go online and they can find that for themselves.
However, we do have our climate plan which will be updated in the spring and which will be coming to our newly renamed and refocused Environment and Place Committee for scrutiny, so that we can make sure that we are as up to date as we can be in terms of helping the public with their education.
There is a number of pieces of work that have been done which can help the public with education and the climate plan will cover that in full.
Public Statement from Councillor Dr Robert Luscombe (Christchurch Town Councillor and Chair of the Christchurch Town Council Neighbourhood Plan Working Group)
Statement from Christchurch Town Council Neighbourhood Plan Working Group re draft BCP Local Plan
Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies in a local plan. When strategic policies include too much local detail, this causes issues for Neighbourhood Planning.
The ward-based policies include a lot of local detail - such as design parameters for small sites and local opportunity areas, and infrastructure proposals to upgrade play areas. Whilst it is helpful to include such details when Neighbourhood Plans are not being prepared, as strategic policies they cannot be revised through the Neighbourhood Plan process. Could the Council therefore consider making clearer which sites and infrastructure project are genuinely strategic and list these as such in Strategic Policy H1 and ID1, so that the ward based policies can be non-strategic. This would not undermine the delivery of overall housing numbers (already in Strategic Policy H1), large strategic sites or strategic infrastructure projects, but allow Neighbourhood Plans to influence the smaller matters.