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 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 mid-day 3 clear working days before the meeting (Wednesday 14 February 2024).

The deadline for the submission of a statement is mid-day the working day before the meeting (Monday 19 February 2024).

The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting (Tuesday 6 February 2024).

The Chair confirmed that all public questions and statements would be taken in the order in which they had been received. Any questions and statements remaining at the end of the 15-minute time limit for public issues would be circulated to all parties within two working days and included in the minutes of the meeting.

 

Public Questions from Jo Keeling:

During a meeting chaired by MP Conor Burns with regards to the Highmoor Farm Planning Application, David McNair, Director of Bournemouth Nuffield Hospital stated that the Nuffield had made enquiries with the council to purchase Wessex Fields in order to build a replacement hospital in this location. Talks were progressing 2019/2020 however they came to an end for reasons he stated he was not privy to.

May I ask who the talks were with? When these talks concluded? Who in the council stopped the potential sale of this land to the Nuffield as I am led to believe it was during the leadership of the first administration? Why did the Nuffield move from Wessex Fields to Talbot Village? Is it indeed a fact they were ‘put off’ from the Wessex Fields site as is rumoured to be the case. If so, why?

 

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

 

Thank you for your question. I can confirm that in early 2020 a community

meeting was held at The Bridge to discuss the options for the Wessex

Fields site which I was involved with alongside the Chief Executive. This

resulted in the agreement to go out to tender with a soft market testing of the site to determine what the interest might be around its use.

 

A significant number of responses were received to this exercise which

was conducted by an external organisation which sent its report to the

Council in October 2020. One of these organisations was the Nuffield

Hospital.

 

Just to clarify that the reason that it took so long was due to the global pandemic. The Council moved to a response phase with non-essential

work being paused, which included the tendering for the soft market testing,

and that was let in June 2020 with the report received by the Council

sometime in October 2020. Our period of leadership ended on 30 September 2020.

 

No meetings were held with any of the potential users who had responded to that market testing, and beyond the initial expression of interest, BCP had no record of further discussions once the pandemic commenced. No direct offer to purchase the site was made by Nuffield or anyone else during my leadership of the council.

 

In December 2020, when the Conservative administration had taken

control, a paper was brought to Cabinet sharing the results of the soft

market testing. I have just been sighted on this for the first time in preparation for this answer. The Cabinet paper sought a decision to sell all or part of the Wessex Field site, and the recommendation which was passed was for part of the site to be sold to the Bournemouth Hospital Trust, now known as UHD, University Hospital's Dorset, and this was progressed. The Cabinet report can be read online, but the external soft market test was provided as a confidential appendix.

 

I cannot tell you why Nuffield decided to start negotiations with Talbot Village Trust, or why they decided not to pursue their initial interest in the site. They are, of course, a private business, so I have no information

available for that.

 

Public Question from Susan Stockwell

 

Will you control waste collection, ensuring bins are returned to and collected by council staff from premises where the waste is generated, instead of being left on pavements/public land where they attract fly tipping and vandalism? This also breaches the Public Sector Equality Duty by obstructing the highway, particularly for young, elderly and disabled. During high winds recently my car came very close to being damaged by a large commercial bin on wheels left in Bournemouth Square after emptying instead of being returned to the premises.

 

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

 

Susan, thank you for your question. The Waste service acknowledge that

bins left out on public land for extended periods of time can be a particular

problem for elderly individuals, disabled people and parents with pushchairs.

 

The Council like the vast majority of local authorities operates a kerbside

waste collection service. Our adopted Waste Collection Guidance can be

viewed online. It is the responsibility of the householder or business to avoid causing an obstruction to pedestrians where possible, and to store their bins as soon as possible on the collection day.

 

Leaving a bin out on the pavement is not a criminal matter, but it is a civil

one. The government has given local authorities the power to issue fines for

persistent breaches of the rules. The government’s advice to councils is that fixed penalty notices should be issued as a last resort.

 

The Council is currently reviewing options and taking learning from other

Local Authorities to consider introducing a new standard for how commercial waste should be stored and how waste bins or sacks are presented on the highway and public land within our town centre retail areas which will be considered at a future cabinet meeting.

 

Public Question from Adam Sofianos

 

Councillors will be aware that the Council has submitted a 15-year plan to Government, in relation to the Safety Valve scheme.

During a Committee meeting last month, it was confirmed by an officer that this plan “doesn’t tackle the deficit currently projected for the end of this financial year.”

In other words, this plan will not pay off a penny of the £63m accumulated deficit – a deficit which already leaves the Council in “technical insolvency”.

Can Council confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that the 15-year Safety Valve plan does not tackle the £63m deficit, and does not remove the associated risk of insolvency?

 

Response from CouncillorRichard Burton, Portfolio Holder for

Children and Young People

 

Thank you, Adam, for the question. Before I answer your question

specifically, you will notice that I have five questions to answer tonight and I

have tried not to repeat myself in any of them. I must also thank you very much for the interest in this. It is really heartening to know the number of people who are interested in children's services and particularly SEND at the moment.

 

Adam, you are quite correct. After 15 years the in-year position is planned to have a small surplus and the accumulated deficit will start to reduce

at that point. The £63m deficit will have risen by that point. Further

conversations will need to take place with government about how the

projected £63m accumulated deficit can be funded in the meantime.

Knowing that we have addressed the increase in the deficit will aid those

conversations.

 

Public Question from Rachel Filmer

In January, over 30 residents gathered to protest against Safety Valve. 20 stayed for the Children’s Services Committee meeting, where 20 questions and 10 statements were submitted.

Families spoke eloquently and bravely about the ways they've been failed by inadequate services. Young people Maisie and Will said they feel unworthy of funding, and they find the Safety Valve plan details terrifying.

Yet the council glosses over legitimate concerns. The 15 year outline mentions the risk of more tribunals and judicial review, acknowledging that statutory duties will not be met. Councillors and officers may be listening, but are we being heard?

By the Council’s own admission, services are already "not good enough". The choices made here will define our children’s entire lives, and determine quality of life for parents and carers, for decades to come.

Will Council commit to oppose any plan which involves a reduction in services?

 

Response from CouncillorRichard Burton, Portfolio Holder for

Children and Young People

 

Thank you very much for your question Rachel.

The 15 year plan is based on all statutory duties being met and children remaining in their current placements for as long as they remain appropriate. The plan includes some assumptions for improved demand management but the main way of reducing budget pressures is through creating new high quality lower cost places through the capital programme.

 

The plan takes an estimated 15 years to achieve balance because there are no plans to change the commitments already made, it takes time to create new local places, and these are to be filled by children who are not yet placed in any provision. There are no plans to change placements for

Children and young people who are in the most appropriate placement. This will only be considered if it is in the best interest of the young person.

 

An associated Improvement Plan for the Local Area SEND partnership has

been developed and is with DfE for approval. This will be shared with all

stakeholders as soon as possible. The implementation of the Improvement Plan will be overseen by the SEND Improvement Board and this

is chaired by the DfE appointed Improvement Advisor and has representatives across all Local Authority, Education and Health structures. l also sit on it that Board.

 

Public Question from Sarah Cooper (read by Adam Sofianos)

 

It is well-documented that the Council’s SEND service has not been consistently meeting statutory requirements. This is evident in

tribunal outcomes, where Council decisions are overturned in the overwhelming majority of cases.

 

A Cabinet paper published in September 2023 described BCP as “the fifth-lowest performing authority in the country”. Although some improved data has been returned, performance is still below statutory minimums and parents tell us of long waits for statutory advice while newer requests are prioritised.

 

Yet the 15-year Safety Valve plan would mean not only a considerable reorganisation of services, but specific reductions in service – such as the need for 50% reduction in EHCPs in Year 1 – to meet financial targets.

 

How can the Council guarantee that any Safety Valve plan would meet statutory levels, when they are already unmet?

 

Response from CouncillorRichard Burton, Portfolio Holder for

Children and Young People

 

Thank you, Adam, for reading the question and could you pass my

thanks to Sarah for asking it.

 

Currently 95% for decisions to assess are within 6 weeks. There is a large historic backlog of annual reviews. Back when the cabinet paper that you refer to was written, and I remember that paper well, as you can imagine; the backlog was over 600. It is now down to at 310. Although this is

still too high it is due to be caught up by May 24 (May this year) based on

current progress.

 

Looking at the EHCP 20-week deadline, I was embarrassed by the number completed in a timely manner at that point. If you remember rightly, it

was 0%. This has consistently improved over the last 3 months: In

November it was up to 3.5%, December 12.5% and January at 28.6%. Due to the nature of the time of indicator it will take some months to

reach our 100% target, but clear improvements can be evidenced. This

is still not good enough, however, I am pleased with the progress and thank

officers for their work in this.

 

Looking at the 50% reduction in EHCPs mentioned. From the around 60 plans per month currently in the system, about 30 are to clear backlog. Going forward the underlying number of new plans in 2023/24 should only be about 30 per month where it is assumed this level will continue in 2024/25 and then reduce by only 1 plan per month over the remaining years due to falling overall child numbers. There is a falling number of school age children within BCP following on from a “bulge” that is going through the secondary school aged children.

 

You are quite right to be concerned about the impact that the Safety Valve

plan might have on the SEND services improvement journey. This is the

primary reason that BCP has entered a 15-year plan rather than a 4 or 7 year plan entered by the other authorities.

 

Public Question from Aimee Surman

 

Some parents are concerned that Safety Valve will mean that their child’s school placement may be changed. Often these children have been

placed in Independent or Non Maintained Special Schools because there were no suitable maintained school places available at the time.

 

We feel it is unfair that our children’s education could be disrupted and damaged when they are thriving. Responsibility for this issue falls with the

local authority for failing to commission sufficient maintained places. Can BCP commit to maintaining all current placements, and not moving children in cases where costs are the only issue?

 

Response from CouncillorRichard Burton, Portfolio Holder for

Children and Young People

 

Thank you Aimee for asking the question and allowing me to offer some

further explanation and reassurance. No child current school placements are planned to be changed. As you will understand there are normal transition points which should always be a time to review needs and suitable provision however these will always be child focus and all decisions will be made in the best interest of the children and young people.

 

Public Question from Lexi Cox

 

Information released in December states that, in order to meet Safety Valve financial targets, you will need to halve the number of Education

Health and Care plans issued. Last month we heard 53% of EHC needs assessment requests are refused. Local policy states any request without supporting evidence from a school will be refused, and schools are confused about how much evidence is needed. As you are aware,

this is an unlawful policy - the legal test makes no mention of this.

 

You note that risks of your 15 year plan include increased appeals and judicial review, demonstrating awareness that your statutory duties will be breached. You are already artificially halving the number of assessments carried out. How will you further reduce the number of assessments and plans issued while meeting statutory duties?

 

Response from CouncillorRichard Burton, Portfolio Holder for

Children and Young People

 

Thank you, Lexi, for your question. I think that the first part of your question

is answered as part of Sarah Cooper’s and Rachel Filmer’s answer.

The 53% of requests for assessment that you refer to is the percentage that

are returned seeking further evidence. Many of these are subsequently

processed when further evidence is received. We will continue to work with

partners on this as asking for further evidence slows down the process. We

need to seeks ways of removing this obstacle.

 

In January 58% of new EHCP requests were direct to the Local Authority and not through their education provider. There are occasions where direct

requests are the best and correct course of action, however we will

continue to encourage parents to work with their education setting at the

earliest opportunity to ensure that universal support is accessed where

possible. Education providers are often the most suitable places for support

and using their expertise can often make the process easier.

In January we witnessed an acceptance rate of 80% to assess. We

are working with Bedford Council our Sector Lead Improvement Partner and school colleagues to review our decisions. A new Quality Assurance

process is in place to support and review such decisions.

 

To meet the normal Safety Valve timescale the plan would have needed

to balance over 5 years, but all have agreed, that is the council and DfE

advisers, that this could not be done and meet statutory duties.

 

Public Question from Susan Lennon

 

Poole Park gate closure: I am a disability campaigner and radio station

owner. There is 14 million disabled in the UK. I am against temporary closure of Whitecliff gate on grounds of disability access. Please reconsider

and take into account the needs of disabled people. The closure disregards the principles of the equality act. Alternatives solutions need to be explored and taken into the needs of the disabled. We need an inclusive environment for all visitors to the park. The people of Poole should have been consulted. Please will you publish the findings of the consultation and clarify your full intentions for Poole Park in the future. I have a live petition: 1,201 as of 12/2/24.

 

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

 

Susan, thanks for your question.

 

As I’m sure you are aware, there are a wide range of disabilities, and we very much appreciate the importance of balancing their needs. As part of the Poole Park Life improvements (2017-21), a range of dedicated disabled

parking spaces were created, and changes were also made to improve

access for people walking and wheeling throughout the park.

 

We have heard from people with disabilities who feel that their cause has

been used during the campaigning. Some disabled people were dissuaded

from visiting the park as a result of misrepresentation of the measure. This

was very unfortunate.

 

The results of the public consultation relating to the trial closure of one

entrance into Poole Park will be made available to the public as part of the

Cabinet process. The papers will include an Equalities Impact

Assessment and ensure the Council meets the necessary requirements

under the Equality Act 2010 and in particular, the Council’s Public Sector

Equality Duty.

 

I agree that it is important we take particular account of the needs of

those with Disabilities and other protected characteristics, and we

intend to do that, whatever the outcome.

 

Public Question from Martin Woodgate

 

In 2021 BCP Council pledged to support the BCP Poverty Truth Commission. In late 2023 we submitted to you our end of commission report. I hope someone has read this report; it’s on our website if you can’t find your copy. Could you tell me what you have done and how

you are supporting this work in a language I can understand?

 

Response from Cllr Millie Earl, Deputy Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Connected Communities

 

Thank you for your question Martin. Here is my response:

 

Since the commission was submitted to BCP Council we have appointed Cllr Simon McCormack as the Lead Member for Homelessness and Cost of

Living. He is looking at how we include the voice of those who have lived

experience as we develop our services and work in partnership with a wide

range of organisations to tackle the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on

communities in Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole.

 

I attended the Poverty Truth Commission Celebration event last summer and was moved by the stories shared by commissioners and have also had the opportunity to read the report and meet with you alongside Cllr McCormack and Cllr Wilson.

 

The Poverty Truth Commission focussed on three common themes:

Humanising the Process; Housing & Home; and Empowered Communities.

We are developing the delivery plan for the Council’s new Corporate Strategy and this looks at our approach to ‘working closely with partners,

removing barriers and empowering others’, ‘Providing services that are

accessible and inclusive’ and ‘Using data, insights and feedback to shape

services and solutions’.

 

A number of Council staff will be taking part in the ‘Art of Hosting’ training in

March that the PTC has arranged so that we can look to further develop our

skills around engaging with people who use council services and using their

feedback to help shape services. All of these will look to ensure that lived

experiences and empowering communities will be at the heart of the

Council’s work.

 

The ‘Together We Can’ Steering Group was set up during the covid pandemic in 2020. It now works to mitigate the impacts of the cost-of-living crisis, share information and identify gaps in support. We focus on food and energy security, financial resilience, health and wellbeing as well as how we effectively communicate what support is available.

 

We are working to make the language in letters that are sent to people

impacted by homelessness easier to understand, with clearer summaries of

decisions and explanations about the housing support and assistance that is available to people in need. This work continues with regular conversations with the Homelessness Partnership lived experience Oracle group.

 

The government is introducing new standards in April, that we, as a social

housing provider, will have to meet. At the heart of these new standards is

putting the tenant voice first, listening to them and involving them as part of

the decision-making process. These new standards should ensure

that, houses are safe and of a good quality to live in. Whilst we do a lot of

this work already, such as a ‘rapid response’ service to deal with damp

and mould, these standards will be monitored regularly and will inspected

by the Regulator of Social Housing. And residents through our Advisory

Board will be able to hold us to account.

 

Finally, the Household Support Fund was a grant from Government to help

our most vulnerable households with the rising cost-of-living. Organisations

such as Citizen’s Advice BCP, schools and the food banks have helped shape how we make the best use of the fund to reach those most in need and provide practical support. We are very concerned that many of our residents depend on the vital support that is available through this fund and there is currently no confirmation from the Government on whether it will continue beyond March 2024. Alongside other councils, charities and organisations, we have called on Government to reinstate this lifeline for those in BCP who are facing crisis through poverty.

 

Public Question from Carrie Burch

 

12 Community Commissioners like me, who have lived experience of poverty, and 13 Civic and Business Commissioners who, like you,

make decisions about our lives, have worked together to build our first successful Poverty Truth Commission in BCP. This has allowed my voice, and those of my community commissioner friends, to be heard. To show that I do matter and my views and opinions are important.

 

As BCP Council has been one of the lead organisations benefiting from our work, will you commit to financially supporting a second BCP

Poverty Truth Commission to ensure the voice of lived experience of poverty continues to change the lives of people in our communities?

 

Response from Cllr Millie Earl, Deputy Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Connected Communities

 

Thank you Carrie for your work as a community commissioner and for your

part in producing the Poverty Truth Commission Report which has helped

so much in identifying the areas where we can make a difference, as a local

council, in tackling the issues faced by those who have experienced poverty. I hope my response to Martin’s question demonstrates some of the work we have been doing to include the voices of those with lived experience in decision making and provide support to those currently in or close to destitution.

 

As we will be discussing later on in this meeting as we set the council’s budget for the coming year, local government finance is at crisis point and, like the majority of other councils, we are having to make savings across a wide range of service areas to continue delivering core services, such as

children’s services and adult social care.

 

Due to this financial uncertainty, we can’t commit funding to the next phase

of the Poverty Truth Commission directly as a council at this point, but

we can, and have, tried to help by providing information about other

potential funding sources and also sponsorship so that you can continue

this important work.

 

Statement from Bob and Jeanie Francis

 

There have been many articles discussing Safety Valve. SEN children are being discussed as percentages and financial burdens. There is little evidence that BCP are aware a child is at the heart of this.

 

SEN children come with a price tag, their needs are greater than a neuro-typical child, many are unable to flourish in a mainstream setting. Some need a specialist environment, equipment, support and specialist teaching. We need more specialist schools, hold on though, doesn’t that cost money, can’t have that, shove that child in mainstream it costs less, doesn’t matter what parents views are, or what child needs, BCP need to save money.

 

There is a massive deficit in Adult Social Care, you are now contributing to this further by not addressing these issues at an earlier age. If you think they're a burden now, just wait. All children including SEN children are our future.

 

Statement from Philip Gatrell

 

Attention is drawn to rising trends in maladministration and service failure complaints by residents and the decisions against BCP shown by the following local government and social care ombudsman data:

 

Total Complaints Processed by the Ombudsman

2019/20 - 43

2020/21 - 40

2021/22 - 73

2022/23 - 72

10 Months to 2 February 2024 - 62

Total - 290 Complaints

 

Complaints Upheld by the Ombudsman after Full Investigation

2019/20 - 5 (42%)

2020/21 - 9 (69%)

2021/22 - 22 (65%)

2022/23 - 26 (68%)

10 Months to 2 February 2024 - 23 (85%)

Total - 85 Cases Upheld

 

The stated complaints upheld numbers and ratio percentages relate to the 124 cases fully investigated by the Ombudsman excluding complaints not proceeded with after initial enquiries.

 

BCP complied with the Ombudsman’s recommendations for upheld complaints regarding the four completed years. However, BCP’s remedial rates prior to the Ombudsman’s determination were:

2019/20 40%

2020/21 0%

2021/22 5%

2022/23 12%

 

Public Question from Nick West

 

Question following the closure of the Whitecliff Gate in Poole Park resulting in a build up of traffic around the one way system and Sandbanks Road.

Now it seems that a 20mph speed limit is being discussed for the whole of the whole of BCP which may lead to a 15-minute city. My understanding is that this is not about road safety. See below: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain

 

So, are you going to take vehicles off our roads and create a 15 minute city in BCP because of very weak evidence of climate emergency? If so, it will not be in the interest of the public.

 

I suggest that 15 minute Cities are nothing less than dystopian and wish to hear from the Council that this will never be the case here.

 

Yours sincerely, from very concerned constituents.

 

Response from Cllr Millie Earl, Deputy Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Connected Communities

 

Thank you Nick for your question. A report on 20mph speed limits shall be

debated at Cabinet on 6 March 2024 and in advance of that at Overview and Scrutiny Board on 26 February 2024. The soon to be published Cabinet paper includes the outputs of a review of the areas across BCP where 20mph speed limits have already been introduced.

 

The outputs of the review are positive which is why more 20mph speed limits in residential areas across the three towns are recommended. The

objective is to reduce the number of residents and/or visitors that are killed

or seriously injured in their neighbourhoods. The recommendation is not being driven by a desire to take vehicles off the roads by creating a 15-

minute city, or as part of a climate emergency initiative.

 

I'd also like to thank Mr West for sharing a link representing the fact that

tens of thousands of people are still seriously injured and killed on roads

across Great Britain with the vast majority of casualties occurring in built

up areas.

 

Public Statement from Shaun Hayward and Ruth Crook, Trustees of the People First Forum

 

You have signed up to our Bill of Rights. This says we have:

- The right to say no;

- The right to have our voices heard;

 

Our members with learning disabilities have spoken up about your proposals:

1) Keep 3 centres

2) lose all 8.

 

We did not know about proposal 2.

 

People with profound and multiple learning disabilities use the centres. They are a very vulnerable group. We think everyone should have their say - “Nothing about Us, Without Us.”

 

Our members are upset, fearful and angry. They say you should not close the centres. People need centres that are:

- Accessible and give us enough space to move freely

- Safe

- Have staff with specialist skills who know us well

 

“It is terrible, shouldn’t shut them down. They should stay open.”

“Where will I go to be with my friends?”

“Respect us, listen and keep our centre!”

 

Public Question from Daniel Parkin

 

Why was the initial consultation period for the BCP local plan delayed until shortly after 19^th March and why are the council not releasing the site assessments for the Gypsy and Travellers site until the consultation period starts next month?

 

Disgruntled residents, over 250 signatures already on a petition in just 2 days campaigning against this, would like to know exactly why the council feel they can designate a potentially contaminated unsuitable site for this community group?

 

Why has the LP Timeline not provided enough time for their complaints process/ombudsman’s complaints process to be worked through?

 

Why was the government’s Traveller planning policy not followed?

 

Please could you update me on the current status of the Creekmoor former Park and Ride site?

 

What is the deadline for submitting the LP to the Inspectorate?

 

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

 

On 23December 2023, Government published the updated National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This had been highly anticipated and

the draft local plan had been written based on the expected changes. This

updated version of the NPPF had been delayed and includes transitional

arrangements (in Para 230) that make it necessary for us to delay the public consultation until after 19 March 2024. If we had consulted immediately after the draft local plan was agreed in January, the whole plan would have had to be based on the previous NPPF.

 

This amendment was reported to Council on 9 January when the Local

Plan was agreed, where they are detailed in Revised Appendices 4 and

6 to Item 57 to the Council papers. The site assessments are part of our

Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment that provides

the evidence to support all the local plan allocations and the sites that were

not allocated. This work will be published at the same time as all of the

other Local Plan evidence, as part of the public consultation. The draft Local Plan and the supporting evidence relating to all aspects of the plan, will be the subject of the forthcoming public consultation. The responses will be provided to the Inspectorate as detailed in the council paper.

 

The site is allocated in the Draft Local Plan as it is on public land that is

available, is self-contained and has good access to services and facilities.

We have positively prepared our Draft Local Plan in accordance with the

Government’s planning policy for traveller sites and the NPPF.

 

We are following a statutory process for preparation of a local plan. If the

public examination is successful the Local Plan will come back to Council

for adoption in Summer 2025, and it is not until this point that the site is

formally agreed or allocated for gypsy and traveller provision.

 

If we decide to bring the site forward for development we will need to submit

a planning application where there will be further public scrutiny. This

timetable provides ample time to submit a complaint, but it would be

preferable if you provide your feedback during the mandatory six week public consultation that will commence on or shortly after the 20 March.

 

Your comments will be passed to an independent planning inspector who

will examine the local plan. The inspector will assess whether the local

plan process has been correctly followed and the allocated sites, including the gypsy and traveller site, are suitable and deliverable. This is the

proper process if you have concerns over the process undertaken by the

Council.

 

The Creekmoor Park and Ride site is safeguarded for a future use for a park and ride. The site was discounted as a permanent gypsy and traveller site as the site floods.

 

We must submit the Local Plan to the Planning Inspectorate at the very latest by June 2025. However we are planning to submit the Local Plan in

June 2024 as we need a BCP Local Plan in place at the earliest opportunity

to provide certainty for our communities and developers on development in the BCP area.

 

Statement from Daniel Glennon

 

I asked a question to full council a few months ago to ask that the council take action on the climate emergency. Three key ways the council can do this is by switching to plant-based catering in its own internal meetings and events; prioritising plant-based menu options in other external sites where the council has an influence; and promoting plant-based eating to residents.

 

This isn’t about mandatory veganism, rather these actions will help to normalise plant-based eating and send a powerful message that this is the direction we need to be heading in as a society to mitigate the worst effects of climate change that are contributed to massively by meat and dairy.

Having declared a climate emergency, it is essential that the council takes action on this. These are all simple steps the council can take that can have a huge impact.

 

Statement from Philip Gatrell

 

Regarding the local government and social care ombudsman’s investigation of service failures and maladministration:

 

Local Government Act 1974 subsections state –

- 30(4): Ombudsman’s reports be available without charge for 3 weeks public inspection at council offices.

- 30(5): Public notice required within 2 weeks of receiving reports, via appropriate advertisement by the “proper officer” – namely “Director of Law & Governance” and “Chief Executive” per Council’s Constitution.

- 30(7): Provides Ombudsman’s discretionary individual case exemptions to the above. Local media and the Council’s website however indicate absence of any notices.

- 30(6): Custodians obstructing inspection incur summary fine.

- 31(2): Reports “be laid before the authority”. Local Government and Housing Act 1989 subsections 5(2)(aa), 5A(3)(b) require Monitoring Officer reporting to each Member regarding Ombudsman investigations.

 

By 2nd February 2024 the Ombudsman upheld 85 cases. One 1989 Act report - not by a Monitoring Officer - was issued to Full Council.

 

Statement from Charles Ross Illingworth

 

I am concerned about 15-minute neighbourhoods, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, and the proposed 20mph limit on BCP area residential

streets. These policies if enacted may have a disproportionate and negative effect on constituents, human rights, and the local economy.

 

Given the objectives and strategies outlined in the Decarbonisation of Transport Plan published by the Department of Transport, with their publicly available Local Authority Toolkits, surely Council policy in this regard is already pre-ordained by central government in line with the stated wishes of the unelected and unaccountable World Economic Forum and UN Agenda 2030?

 

If BCP Council follows state policy, the outcome is de facto already decided. Draft policy is already set out in the Local Plan. Accordingly any public discussion or consultation now is just mere theatre and sham to deliberately give the false impression that there has been a transparent democratic process to the general public.

 

Statement from Nick Greenwood

 

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development drafted by the UN and World Economic Forum currently appears to be a serious ambition of the BCP. There is emerging evidence (to be presented in a fuller Statement later) that this agenda is preordained making consultations nothing more than lip service and deceptive Theatre for the Public. The Agenda has been drafted by unelected off-shore bodies and adaptation would be in breach the Nolan Principles and likely be an act of treason.

 

Statement from Peter Schroeder

 

Selling a large part of the Beach Road carpark would be a major and irreversible mistake. For both residents and our vitally needed influx of visitors, we require a properly developed parking strategy for the area.

The premise that it is not needed because of underuse is false. It is underused because it has been seriously neglected. It is badly signed

and publicised; poorly lit and marked, and closed for months even as with the opening of Rockwater, winter parking for Branksome Chine is in short supply.

 

The council needs to think again about the whole parking issue.

 

Statement from Roy Pointer

 

Is this what we have come to – selling off the family silver to make ends meet?

 

What has happened to the economic dividend from creating BCP?

What has become of Britain’s Premier seaside destination?

With a town centre in decline, rubbish and graffiti everywhere, we must maximise the one fantastic asset we have – the miles of sandy beach.

 

But no. Neglect and hide a beach car park for long enough and people will be glad to see it gone. Forget the visitors, ignore the residents, shun families – we’re closing down! I urge you - don’t sell up!

 

Statement from Philip Stanley Watts

 

I understand BCP council is under financial pressure but the team of CSAS officers and youth services should be maintained and extended to offset the problems of knife crime and ASB behaviour and promote wellbeing in local communities. CSAS officers are a vital cog to deter and detect as well as support and engage with communities.

 

Statement from Celine Spearing

 

I am a mother of 3 young children who attend their local primary school in BCP. We are in the process of applying for an EHCP plan for our third son. I come from a teaching background whereby I taught Modern Foreign Languages for several years. Throughout my career, I have seen so many pupils left behind because there wasn’t enough support available to them.

 

As one teacher facing 30 students, I tried my best, but I reached a point where my best wasn’t enough for them. I am now standing on the other side as a parent, trying my best once again to support our son who needs help at school. To me, the safety valve means that the government will cut

down more on this support. What is the goal, I ask? Have these lawmakers spent any time in schools to see how dire the situation is?