The deadline for questions to be submitted to the Monitoring Officer is 28 October 2019.
Minutes:
Question from Councillor Andy Jones
Given the anger and frustration caused to a number of disabled football fans by the removal of a significant amount of parking in Kings Park with no formal consultation, can the leader state what steps she is personally going to take to ensure that this never happens again?
Response by Councillor Andy Hadley (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure)
I thank Councillor Jones for his question, which the Leader has asked me to respond to, as this has been raised with me, and with officers, by members opposite previously.
The introduction of restrictions to suspend parking within Kings Park during match days was agreed through the Safety Advisory Group meetings with the football club and the Police. With the increasing success of AFC Bournemouth, the Police were concerned with access to the site for emergency vehicles and for safe access away from the site for coaches carrying visiting fans. They reported that on occasions, due to the level of parking by blue badge holders within Kings Park, coaches were prevented from leaving the site in a safe manner at the end of the match.
The restrictions have been introduced using a temporary traffic regulation order (TTRO), also in place in Thistlebarrow Road on match days. We did not enforce the restriction for the first few matches. and most people have been respecting the change.
Following feedback from blue badge holders, and in order to mitigate the impact, the club have offered them alternative parking. Members of the Safety Advisory Group recently met with local Councillors, including yourself, and blue badge holders representing the fans, to review the decision. As you will know, it was reported that the changes had made a very positive impact, not only for the safety of coaches leaving the grounds but also for all vehicles departing after the match. There was discussion on the appropriate provision of parking for blue badge holders and a commitment from the club to make some changes and ensure this is monitored over the next home fixtures, with a review in the new year. I would hope that having attended this meeting that Councillor Jones is content with the approach taken by the Council in partnership with AFC Bournemouth and guidance from the Police.
Councillor Jones will also know that I have been raising the possibility of a direct walking link between Pokesdown for Boscombe Railway station and Kings Park to help reduce matchday congestion.
We will continue to work with the Police, the club and the fans, including those with disability, to attempt to ensure that everyone has a safe and enjoyable experience.
Supplementary Question from Councillor Andy Jones
Councillor Jones asked if equality impact assessments would be undertaken for every event and for TROs.
Response by Councillor Andy Hadley (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure)
Councillor Hadley confirmed that equality impacts assessments were undertaken and he would expect that to be the case.
Question from Councillor Drew Mellor
Could the Portfolio Holder please outline what contractual arrangements have been historically in place with the organisers of the Bournemouth Marathon Festival and our legacy Councils and whether those contractual provisions have changed for what would have been the 2020 Bournemouth Marathon Festival? In particular, was there and is there a requirement on the organisers to provide a marathon as part of the festival?
In addition, what were the number of entrants to the festival as a whole and the marathon specifically in each year since its inception?
Response by Councillor Lewis Allison (Portfolio Holder for Tourism, Leisure and Communities)
The Marathon Festival was retendered in 2018 on a six-year contract from 2019 – 2024 and GSi Events were the only submission. The organisers are within their contractual rights to drop the Marathon distance from the weekend of events. Either party can opt out of the contract but given that the inaugural event took over 18 months to organise the 2020 races have already been agreed without the Marathon distance.
In 2020 and onwards, the half marathon distance gives the organisers the flexibility to make adjustments to the route that will make it even more attractive to runners but also far less impactful on the local residents. Over the past 7 years this has been one of the main issues where runners have had to move through residential areas in order to gain the required distance for the full marathon.
The decision by the organisers, GSI events, not to have the Marathon is partly due to the fact that they wanted a guarantee of the same route being available every year which due to development works, road changes and unknowns like cliff slips the Council is not able to provide.
The organisers have complete confidence that “Run Bournemouth” will continue to attract runners to the area and elongate the tourist season, being of benefit to the many hotels, accommodation providers and other leisure providers.
The overall event has grown from 5,975 entrants in 2013 to 10,646 in 2019. In 2013 the Marathon entries accounted for 35% of all entries and by 2019 this was down to 20%. The marathon distance accounts for just over 2000 entries. It perhaps is helpful to add to this information that the entries across the board for “Run Bournemouth” are 10% up on numbers from this time last year. 63% of the runners for the 2020 events are visitors to the area and are not local. This is very positive given that the organisers are only in their 5th week of entries being open and haven't yet released most of their marketing campaigns for the event.
The Council will continually explore trends and test the market longer-term for a Marathon.
Supplementary Question from Councillor Drew Mellor
Councillor Mellor indicated that he had taken part in the Marathon which was an iconic event and felt that the response was contradictory. He referred to the impact on Bournemouth and asked if the Portfolio Holder would look into the position and lack of ambition as other organisers may wish to organise such an event.
Response by Councillor Lewis Allison (Portfolio Holder for Tourism, Leisure and Communities)
The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the decision had been made by the organiser and the Council advised of the decision.
Question from Councillor Anne Filer
Would the portfolio holder explain the reasoning behind the decision to build the “Road to Nowhere” behind Wessex Fields
Response by Councillor Andy Hadley (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure
I thank Councillor Filer for her question. Cabinet have carefully considered the road onto and through the Wessex Fields site that the previous Bournemouth Borough Council took through planning, and the shortfall of funding that they had secured to complete their scheme.
Reviewing the travel plan that was within the application documents, it is plain that the majority (87%) of people travelling to site are expected to be coming from the urban conurbation, and despite being one of the widest roads in the area Castle Lane East is already chronically busy. It has repeatedly been proven around the world that new roads induce further traffic.
We plan to consult with the public about how we can ensure that the Wessex Fields site delivers social as well as economic benefit. We don’t want to build a road through the site at this stage which may constrain the potential buildings, or to load it up with traffic from Castle Lane East before there are significantly enhanced sustainable transport options in place for the whole Littledown area.
We have had good discussions recently with the Royal Bournemouth Hospital and the University to understand their plans, and in particular, how we can work together on measures to encourage travel to site by bus, by walking and cycling, as these are far more cost effective and healthy ways to reduce the congestion in the area.
We must plan to move people not just cars, and to encourage travel choices that are less damaging to the built and natural environment, not just at Wessex Fields, but across our conurbation.
Supplementary question from Councillor Anne Filer
Councillor Filer asked how patients and staff would get to the Hospital.
Response by Councillor Andy Hadley (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure)
The Portfolio Holder referred to the previous statements from concerned residents on congestion and highlighted that the Council was actively working with the University and the Hospital and would not be building its way out of this situation.
Question from Councillor Duane Farr
Since the May elections, the Community Infrastructure Levy – Neighbourhood Portion has been stopped. Local community groups have approached ward colleagues and myself, but we have had to turn them away for projects including a public access life-saving Defibrillator. Defibrillators save vital minutes before an ambulance can arrive on the scene, increasing chance of survival from heart attack.
Why has this service been stopped since the May elections, while others have continued?
Response by Councillor Margaret Phipps (Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning)
I can reassure Councillors that the application process for bidding for the neighbourhood portion of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has not been stopped. If members and community groups have submitted bids to officers and have been told that the scheme has been suspended or closed, I would ask that they notify me, as this is incorrect.
Leading up to the May 2019 elections there was a pause on determining outstanding bids that had been submitted due to purdah. Since the formation of the new council, officers in discussion with the portfolio holder, have been reviewing the process for allocating neighbourhood portion CIL funds. It is anticipated a cabinet report will be forthcoming in January to look afresh at the various approaches across BCP Council that have been inherited from the legacy authorities, the aim being to have a consistent approach to allocating CIL neighbourhood portion funds across all of BCP Council.
However, in the meantime the existing systems in place will continue until a new BCP wide approach is adopted. Officers are writing to all councillors to remind them of the processes in place and to confirm that new bids are welcomed.
In Bournemouth further CIL Neighbourhood Portion Panel meetings will be established to consider any additional bids that councillors may want to put forward, including, should it be forthcoming, for a defibrillator in the Kinson ward. In respect of proposed outstanding CIL Neighbourhood portion bids, officers previously wrote to all Bournemouth councillors requesting that they reconfirm their commitment to outstanding applications and to inform them that these applications will be considered by the reconvened CIL Neighbourhood Portion Panel at a meeting on the 21st November. The majority of councillors have confirmed that they do want the bids to be considered at this panel meeting.
In Poole the current approach of considering bids from the community for projects from the overall CIL neighbourhood pot is still in place. There is expected to be sufficient money in the Poole Neighbourhood Portion pot to run another bidding round early in 2020, which will be confirmed and publicised as part of the imminent communication to all Councillors.
In Christchurch there is total coverage of the area by Parish, Town and Neighbourhood Councils, therefore in accordance with regulations the neighbourhood portion will be passed to these bodies to be spent on local projects. It is the intention for the legacy (Pre April 2019) 15% neighbourhood proportion in the previously unparished area of Christchurch to be passed on to the new councils i.e. Christchurch Town Council and Highcliffe and Walkford Parish Council.
Supplementary Question from Councillor Duane Farr
Councillor Farr sought clarification on the 15% and 25% Neighbourhood proportion.
Response by Councillor Margaret Phipps (Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning)
The Portfolio Holder explained the increase to 25% of the Neighbourhood proportion.
Question from Councillor Andy Jones
There have been a significant number of occasions when certain Cabinet Members have not responded or even acknowledged emails from myself and colleagues on behalf of residents, some dating back to June! What measures will the leader now put in place to address this totally unacceptable situation, and how will she ensure that this does not continue to occur in the future?
Response by Councillor Vikki Slade (Leader of the Council)
Thank you for your question, I note that I have received this question from you several weeks ago and responded within 24 hours, copying in your group leader to express my own disappointment. This must have been blind copied to others as I received an onward email from another member of your group which I duly responded to, and received confirmation that they were content with my reply. As promised in my email, I raised this individually with the cabinet members that were named, and with their group leaders.
It has been a period of great change for councillors and officers and the working relationship that some officers are developing with their cabinet member is quite different from those under previous councils. Some members have taken a little longer to establish these relationships and on occasion have relied a little more heavily than I would have liked on assuming officers might respond. I have reiterated the responsibilities that go with being a cabinet member and stressed the importance of swift replies to queries whether they are from members of the public, partners, officers or other councillors.
I would like to remind members of the council that using a portfolio holder for reporting items such as fly tipping or one-off damaged toilets is not a good use of time and would encourage them to use the reporting functions that are set up for this purpose. For general queries we now have a member services email that can help direct councillors to the correct officer for simple responses.
All members of the cabinet are fully aware of their responsibilities and the expectations on them to show leadership.