Agenda item

To consider issues within the Environment and Climate Change Portfolio area including the following reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 30 September:

·       Managing Unauthorised Encampments: Policies and Procedures  

·       Christchurch Bay and Harbour FCERM (Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Managemnet) Strategy

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Felicity Rice, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change.

The Cabinet report is attached for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

Christchurch Bay and Harbour FCERM (Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy) - The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘D’ to the Cabinet minutes of 30 September 2020 in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Board member asked about the how the strategy worked with the other plans in place to manage the shoreline. It was noted that there were three different levels of shoreline management.  The Christchurch Bay area extended into New Forest District Council and therefore they would also be approving the plan. Previous plans which were in place did not have the approval of the Environment Agency.

·     In response to a question regarding whether there was any modelling available for the different scenarios and the impact of the long groyne at Hengistbury Head. It was noted that the long groyne was covered under the Poole Bay Management plan and there was funding available for work on this which would begin next year.  There was an in-house model running on sediment movement around the two bays. However, there were no plans in place to change the shape and length of the groyne except to increase the height to deal with rising sea levels.  There was also a concern that too much sediment could have impact by blocking up the harbour.

·     In response to a query regarding the different plans in place and where the ownership and responsibility sat with these the Board was informed that that there was currently a strategy in place for Poole Bay to Poole Harbour to Wareham but this strategy was required for the frontage from Hengistbury head eastwards and would cover this area from a strategic position in conjunction with the other coastal plans in place.

Managing unauthorised Encampments: Policies and Procedures - The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix B to the Cabinet minutes of 30 September 2020 in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board and Members of the Working Group in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Working Group member advised the Board that there were cautious about the recommendation regarding a stopping place. The Borough of Poole had been through an exercise to identify a stopping place at least twice and a site wasn’t identified. They commented that on paper it looked like a sensible option but in reality, it would be difficult to carry out.

·     Another Group member commented that when looking at this previously all of the solutions seemed to depend on making progress in actively looking for alternative stopping places. The ability to take out pre-emptive injunctions was useful but dependent upon seeking out alternative stopping places. The commented that they felt that they were a  fairly balanced set of recommendations.

·     A Board member suggested that the situation was different for the whole of BCP and that past issues were not particularly relevant. They suggested that other local authorities had benefitted from alternative stopping places in dealing with unauthorised encampments.

·     Another member of the working group advised that there had been very good debate with input from officers and legal. The situation with pre-emptive injunctions in use in London Boroughs and the legal challenges to using these was considered. Alternative stopping places needed further debate between different parties which was the reason for the wording within the Cabinet report.

·     A Councillor commented on their experience of an incursion into their ward and the disruption that this caused to residents. The recommendation in question was for the working group to look into these issues further in accordance with legal advice and they suggested that the working group should look at all of these issues.

·     In response to previous comments made by a Board member a Councillor advised that they felt that previous work undertaken by preceding Councillors shouldn’t devalue anyone’s experiences. It was noted that recommendation b appeared to wrap up a number of possibilities and they felt that there was a need to explore all options more widely before anything was taken to Cabinet or any recommendations were agreed.

·     Members raised concern that certain options were being ruled in or out without appropriate consultation taking place particularly with the travelling community.

·     A Board member proposed a motion that ‘recommendation b’ in the report should not be approved by Cabinet as this had the effect of distilling the next steps down to just two parts before appropriate consultation could take place. Other members of the Board raised concerns that the motion made would prevent the working group moving forward and the original recommendation was just asking the working group to look at what was possible legally and feasible within a couple of options but without limiting other options.

There was some concern raised as to what the motion was trying to achieve but the proposer of the motion confirmed that the intent was to allow considerations to move forward without restricting the available options. The Board took a vote on the proposed motion and it was:

RECOMMENDED that that the recommendation outlined in the Cabinet report at ‘b’ should not move forward for approval by Cabinet.

Voting: For – 7, Against 5

Cllr M Iyengar and T Trent did not vote as they were members of the Working Group.

The Chairman advised that he could see that there were strong issues on each side but that there was a need to move forward with all options open and the work was fully supported. A Board member commented that the member briefing seemed to indicate that these were the options as selected by the member working group and asked what the further options were that weren’t being taken forward. A Councillor responded and outlined that there were several options which could be given further consideration. It was noted that there seemed to be general consensus but there was a need for clarification on the overall wording of the particular recommendation.