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 19 February 2025.)
The deadline for the submission of a statement is mid-day the working day before the meeting (Monday 24 February 2025.)
The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting (Monday 10 February 2025.)
Minutes:
Public Questions
Public Question from Clive Block
Can the Council clarify what plans are in place to replace the signs for Poole's lifting bridges? Furthermore, could the Council provide a clear timescale for when this will be completed?
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Climate Response, Environment and Energy, Councillor Andy Hadley
Thank you Mr Block for your question, which i understand you have also asked via your MP, and the Engineering team have already answered.
The team responsible for the bridge signs have been working over several years to try and rectify the malfunctions with the signs which have not been straightforward to resolve, as there has often been no single identifiable cause. I have also myself noticed incorrect information as I have crossed the bridge, from time to time, and have advised the bridge operators of the issue.
We apologise for the negative impact these malfunctions have had on the public, including yourself.
We have identified a way forward and plan, (subject to financial approvals and successful procurement), to replace the current rotating prism signs with modern LED alternatives in the coming financial year.
Public Question from Susan Stockwell
I am advised by White Ribbon that a council which has received their accreditation, is expected to be working towards a licensing policy on strip clubs with a presumption against licensing. Furthermore, BCP's first sex establishment licensing policy was quashed by Judicial Review, following the unlawful failure to consider complaints by women of harassment by strip club customers. Will this council now be apologising to those women?
If it can be arranged for both the cabinet member for diversity and the member for regulatory services to answer this, I would be grateful. It is not clear where responsibility for the decision making which led to the above Judicial Review lies between the two functions.
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regulatory Services, Councillor Kieron Wilson
Thank you for your question, Susan. When forming the previous sexual entertainment policy, Licensing Committee members considered all responses and consulted with the community safety colleagues and Dorset Police to assess the evidence of issues linked to the sexual establishment venues. These inquiries did not support the feedback received with little evidence of incidences.
To say that the Council disregarded women who said they were victims of harassment by strip club clients is incorrect. The consultation feedback focused on feelings of safety in the area which is busy in the nighttime economy location. The judicial review found the documented consideration of the feedback received was not prescriptive enough to outline why these views did not form a larger part of policy considerations. It does not mean that these views were disregarded. They were considered and the evidence did not support it. It was recognised at the conclusion of the judicial review as it was reached with some reluctance because BCP had taken an otherwise diligent and extensive consultation.
The judgement against our previous sexual entertainment policy does not have any impact on our ability to enforce breaches of licences in place and their conditions. Since the judgement we have renewed licences and continue to apply stringent conditions to protect both patrons and performers within these licensed premises. We are undertaking member training to empower the Licensing Committee to support decision making around sexual entertainment venue licensing which will include when licences can be refused on the grounds that it would be inappropriate having regard to the character of the relevant locality or to the use of any premises within the vicinity. There is no legal requirement to have a sexual entertainment policy and we are working with White Ribbon on our action plan and the extensive wider work that we do to keep women and girls safe. Thank you once again for your question.
Public Question from Alex Harman
Firstly, I’d like to thank the council for your response from the 10th December Council meeting which outlined some of the Environment & Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee's considerations regarding increased plant-based options in council-controlled food services, limiting unsustainable food advertising, and launching public education campaigns. These are positive steps.
However, given the urgency of the climate crisis, which is affecting lives around the world, with clear scientific evidence about the impact of our food systems, decisive action is crucial.
Could you please share what decisions the committee has made regarding these considerations, including any timelines for implementation if possible? We count on you to demonstrate the necessary leadership on this critical issue. The Plant Based Treaty team offers their full support and resources to aid in this process.
Furthermore, to highlight these important internal ongoing efforts, will the council finally endorse the Plant Based Treaty?
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Climate Response, Environment and Energy, Councillor Andy Hadley
Alex, thank you for your question.
The Place and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee continue to explore the most significant impacts of humans accelerating climate change, and how we reduce our impact. They are about to review our annual report for progress on Climate mitigation.
Global food supply accounts for around 30% of Carbon Emissions, and about 20% of that relates to international transport of food, including fruit and vegetables.
There is no doubt that the footprint of meat eating is a significant multiplier, and that a low meat, vegetarian or vegan diet is beneficial in terms of carbon fooprint. So is eating locally produced and seasonal food, and this together with reducing processing and packaging all contribute to improving the Carbon footprint.
The OSC is not a decision making body, but make recommendations to Cabinet. We are grateful for the offer of support from your group.
In a democracy we need to advise people, give them opportunities, but ultimately to respect that people will choose what they eat and why.
Public Question from Julia Burg
This year will be the first year we will exceed the 1.5 degrees global temperature increase, a limit set by the Paris agreement. This is not a political target, this is a physical limit of the planet. Action must be taken to ensure we achieve a stable climate. The Food system is one of the leading causes of the climate crisis. We are aware that the issue of diets is something that affects our culture and daily lives.
Will the Council Endorse the Plant Based Treaty, and be transparent with the public and local community, to address and explain environmental and health consequences of animal agriculture and products on the population, to educate children and the next generation in the community about the climate emergency, and support a transition to a plant-based food system?
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Climate Response, Environment and Energy, Councillor Andy Hadley
Julia, thank you for your question.
It is indeed a rising challenge that there has been inadequate clear leadership and education nationally and internationally on the climate crisis facing our planetary home.
The biggest contributions that individuals and the Council can make to reducing our carbon footprint are around how we heat our homes and other spaces, how and where we choose to travel, and whether we are prepared to reduce our consumption of all things, not just food.
Reducing consumption of meat, and any food products which are imported, highly processed or otherwise stored out of season are all good steps to reduce environmental damage.
I agree that Education, particularly for the next generation, about the Climate Emergency and what individuals can do to reduce their footprint is important. They will be the ones to inherit what we leave behind.
We are ensuring that plant-based options are available and promoted in Council run outlets, and that we support a transition to a plant-based food system.
Public Question from Sarah Abbott
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is telling us that our food system has to move from being a source of emissions, to being a carbon sink.
Cities and councils are absolutely essential in climate solutions. A few changes, even at a local level, can have a huge broader impact on other councils and can influence change at a national level.
Cities such as Amsterdam and Edinburgh have endorsed the Plant Based Treaty, followed by impact assessments, action plans and implementations, such as increased plant-based options in public institutions, reducing advertising of environmentally harmful products, and introducing more plant-based options in schools, even having one day a week ‘Earth days’ where 100% plant-based options are offered.
Is there any reason why the BCP Council cannot endorse the Plant Based Treaty like so many other councils are doing?
Response by the Lead Members for Destination, Leisure and Commercial Operations, Councillor Richard Herrett
Sarah, thank you for your question. The Council are seeking to introduce more plant based options around our own catering outlets, which are mostly on the seafront. In that setting, there is direct competition with private catering organisations, and in order to retain customers, and maintain income that helps fund vital Council services, we need to balance our offer.
The principal demand is for ice-cream and coffee, and whilst we do have vegan offers, and are looking at how we can promote these, it ultimately requires customers to choose them.
If a plant based offer is engaging, tasty and wanted, then it could not only increase overall sales, it would also shift the balance to a larger proportion of sales being plant based. This would be an outcome that provides a win win scenario.
As I said at the beginning, we are working to increase options for plant based products, but this does take time. We are also reviewing the carbon footprint of our packaging, supply chain and waste streams alongside this other work. These are also important mitigation matters
We are not, as a council in a position to mandate to schools their menus, or curriculum. Thank you again.
Public Question from Brian Knight
Did Councillors ever discuss the implementation of the second home levy by way of a graduated introduction over, say, a 3-to-5-year period from 1 April 2025 for Senior Citizens, because this is a significant level of increase, and why was there no process encompassing adequate consultation, with a referendum, which would have been a more fair and democratic process?
Graduating payment would assist pensioners to financially plan for the future and pending health care costs. It would also reduce the stress and anxiety yet to be managed on looming inflationary pressures related to utility bills, food, insurance, etc.
Our experience of communications, including the validation process of the recording of second home ownership, has fallen short. There appears to have been little regard given to the consequences and outcomes of billing double council tax (plus 5% increase) in this way.
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Councillor Mike Cox
Councillors discussed the implementation of the second homes premium in June 2022, July 2023 and when the final determination was made by Full Council in January 2024.
The process has been fully compliant with the provisions of the relevant legislation namely the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. In fact, the council has gone further than actually required and the approach of numerous other councils, by writing to all the people it believes will be liable to the premium in the summer of 2024.
Please bear in mind there is limited local discretion as to how council tax legislation can be applied. Council Tax is based on the band of the property and the occupants age is not relevant. It should be emphasised the purpose of the second homes premium is to help councils address the impact on local communities from people deciding to own more than one home.
Public Question from Steve Harper
Have the council's planning officers reviewed all the relevant documents regarding the Canford incinerator, particularly the health assessment by Gair Consulting Ltd, which altered child weight parameters to 20kg, and the now-removed Calderdale Council peer review by Bureau Veritas UK Ltd?
Additionally, have officers assessed the omission of key water treatment plants—Longham Lakes Reservoir (2.55km from the proposed incinerator ), Longham Water Treatment Works (2.91km from the proposed incinerator), and Bournemouth Water Treatment Plant (1.8km from the proposed incinerator)—from the application documentation?
Finally, have officers received Bournemouth’s catchment risk assessment from the water companies, particularly regarding trade effluent, wastewater discharges, and industry, in line with the Drinking Water Inspectorate's August 2024 PFAS monitoring and risk assessment guidance? If so, will these documents be shared with the planning committee and the public before they make a decision?
Response by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Millie Earl
Thank you, Mr. Harper. As required by legislation, the recommendation will be made in accordance with the development plan and planning policy, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. If the planning officer considers that additional information is needed, this will be raised with the applicant who will then need to provide further information on the impact of development and the operation of an incinerator and to merit a recommendation to approve the development plan. The applicant will need to demonstrate to the council as the local planning authority that it meets planning requirements.
The Environment Agency is currently undertaking surveillance of PFASs or forever chemicals, such as part of their groundwater quality monitoring network and water companies are also monitoring for a range of these in raw water. The August 2024 document is guidance from the drinking water inspector to water companies. If the water companies or the environmental agency consider that the proposal increases these concerns, then we expect them to raise this with us as part of their representations and provide supporting documentation such as the risk assessment you've mentioned. Thank you.
Public Statements
Public Statement from Nicholas West
Question: Why implement a 20mph limit in residential areas? Answer: To enhance road safety. However, this approach may not lead to the desired outcomes. Why is that? It could result in significant congestion at roundabouts and traffic lights as evidenced by traffic from certain directions approaching Cooper Dean, causing added pollution. According to the 'Drivers Awareness Scheme', the main cause of collisions is lack of driver and pedestrian attention. Many other issues contribute, including distractions, fatigue, substance use, and the challenges posed by e-scooters and cyclists who often lack proper lighting.
I also asked a Councillor about the concept of 15-minute cities only to hear that it was not on the agenda. Thus the underlying motive behind speed restrictions appears to create chaos, with the proposed solution being the implementation of 15-minute cities. So we must advocate thoughtful effective measures that truly enhance safety without compromising the flow of traffic.
Public Statement from Dolores Wallace
Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
My son, Tommy, was a kind, loving young man with his whole life ahead of him. He was taken from us in a senseless act of violence by someone who should never have been here—someone who had already taken lives before and yet was allowed to enter our country.
We have been told there were missed warnings and failed systems. But knowing this does not bring my son back. It only leaves painful questions: How was this allowed to happen? Who failed to protect us?
The government has rightly ordered a public inquiry into the Southport murders. But justice must not be selective. The same failures that led to those deaths failed my son too. His murder must be included in the inquiry.
I ask you to support Councillor Salmon’s motion and demand full accountability.
Public Statement from Patrick King
The perilous condition of roads and many defects concerns all users.
Especially for cyclists, and other two wheelers much more vulnerable to the external hazardous influences and subsequent consequences.
Beryls electric scooters are extremely vulnerable as small wheels exponential exacerbate any road defects.
Even with cycle route networks it still necessitates utilising narrow urban routes whereby avoidance of defects are precluded without exposure to incremental personal risk.
Example. Fiveways to Richmond Hill littered with innumerable defects and hazards of all types to be negotiated and is not to be undertaken where perceived risk exceeds any benefits. Cars suffer suspension, wheel and other damage.
These additional distractions for ALL road users, on occasions necessitating action, especially two wheelers, may contribute to increased incidents.
Liability rests individually and collectively in this chamber and is incumbent to ensure safe passage and comfort of road users by more rapid, efficient highways maintenance.
Public Statement from Nick Greenwood
The 150-word limit statement may be intended to streamline discussions, but it raises concerns about the depth of engagement with the public especially given the BCP’s poor history of consultation. This approach undermines democratic values and hinders progress. By limiting discussions around key projects, such as your adherence to Agenda 2030, it appears BCP focus lies more with international agendas than with the concerns of local residents.
It's crucial to engage the public fully, particularly on significant initiatives related to costly Net Zero projects which are met with widespread skepticism from legitimate scientific information. Are you claiming the public is well-informed regarding proposed 15-minute city ambitions? While phrases like "convenience" are appealing, they mask the Orwellian reality of potential movement restrictions and demands to ask permission to leave designated areas. This is fostered by dubious climate change claims used as a trojan horse, driven by misplaced ideology.
Public Statement from Elizabeth Glass
Democracy at its best. Said after the devolution debate. Residents not consulted. True democracy flows from the people to government not the other way round.
Replacing perfectly serviceable council vehicles with EVs to achieve UK100 ambitious net zero targets ahead of the government’s legal target plus council’s own pledge to become carbon neutral by 2030.
As reported in the Echo, cost to the taxpayer nearly 20 million loan for the EVs plus potentially 3 million per year for not reaching said targets; and how much more?
Just 2 examples to illustrate that we are paying a high price both financially and to the detriment of services. This is without providing any evidence of the necessity for the pursuit of these goals and without a mandate from us.
Democracy at its best? No council, no democracy at all.
Public Statement from Alex McKinstry
Thursday's Audit and Governance Committee should endorse the suggested investigation into Carter's Quay. Issues include the whirlwind romance conducted between the Council and Inland Homes, including the latter's email to Planning on 24 August 2021: "The agreement it will be built for BCP Council has now been confirmed". At that point the proposals hadn't even been before Cabinet - let alone full Council, which was three weeks away.
We need to know, too, what credit checks were carried out on the actual development company, Inland Partnerships Ltd, which had been trading at a seven-figure loss for two years running. Drew Mellor told full Council, 14 September 2021, that the scheme carried "no risks". Since then, Inland Partnerships and its parent company, Inland Homes (guarantor of the scheme) have both entered administration, and the Council has effectively paid £15,300,000 for extensive piling on land it does not own.