Agenda item

Please refer to the recommendations detailed below.

7a – Audit and Governance Committee 26 November 2020 - Minute No. 47 - Report of the Constitution Review Working Group - Changes to the Council's Constitution

 

The Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee, Councillor Beesley presented the recommendations relating to the report of the Constitution Review Working Group and proposed changes to the Council’s Constitution from the Audit and Governance Committee.

 

He moved the following recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Williams.

 

Procedure Rule 36

(a) That Procedure Rule 36 be amended to read “Any motion under Procedure Rule 12 (Motions on Notice), to vary or revoke these Rules shall, when proposed and seconded, stand adjourned without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council”;

 

(b) That Procedure Rule 36 (as amended) be moved from Sub Part C (General Provisions) to Sub Part A (Council Meetings).

 

Councillor Beesley explained that in accordance with the Constitution the above recommendations would stand adjourned without debate until the next meeting of the Council on 23 February 2021.

 

Councillor Beesley reported on the revised wording for recommendation (e) which should read as follows which had been circulated to all Councillors:

 

Neighbourhood Forum Call-in of Planning applications

(e) That the power to call-in planning applications to Committee should not be extended to Neighbourhood Forums.

 

Councillor Beesley moved recommendations (c)-(m) as detailed on the agenda including revised (e) detailed above which were seconded by Councillor Williams.

 

Councillor Phipps referred to the following recommendation.

 

Planning Committee Structure

(j) That the current structure of the BCP Council Planning Committee system remain unchanged.

 

She reported that the recommendation had not been unanimously agreed at the Audit and Governance Committee and therefore the issue merits a fuller investigation to ascertain the best option.  Councillor Phipps indicated that one Planning Committee was unsatisfactory and outlined the approach taken by other local authorities. 

 

Councillor Phipps moved the following amendment to (j) above which was seconded by Councillor Le Poidevin.

 

That the current structure of the BCP Council Planning Committee system remain unchanged for the remainder of the 2020/21 Municipal Year, but, the Council instructs officers to conduct a full study into the feasibility and benefits of establishing three separate Area Planning Committees for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and one Strategic Planning Committee for the whole conurbation, from the municipal year 2021/22.    Officers should produce an in-depth objective written report as soon as possible on this potential restructure for consideration by a working party of the Audit and Governance Committee.

 

Councillors considered the above amendment and made various comments including on the current arrangements whereby Planning Officers were working in three teams for each area, previous discussions on the structure of the Planning Committee, local knowledge and the size of the Committee, that the existing arrangements were working and 3 separate committees would be costly and cumbersome, the option of using sub-committees similar to Licensing sub-committees, the percentage of planning applications determined by Officers under delegated powers, that planning policy drives planning decisions and there should be consistency, would the structure be more effective if there was more local Member representation and that at the very least there should be investigation into alternative options setting out the pros and cons.

 

Councillor Phipps in summing up thanked the speakers highlighting the local knowledge deficit in the current planning structure and the need for the issue to be fully examined.

 

Councillor Beesley reported that there had been extensive input and discussion from the Working Group on this issue.

 

The amendment detailed above was put to the vote and lost.

 

Voting: For – 36, Against – 38, Abstention – 0

 

Council Farquhar wished to be recorded as voting for the amendment.

 

Councillors in considering the substantive motion commented on the process relating to tree preservation orders and member call-in of planning applications and in particular the impact of the removal of the 30-day time limit. Councillors explained that the intention was to enable ward councillors to have more time to consider their approach on a planning application.

 

Councillor Beesley in summing up referred to recommendation (i) relating to tree preservation orders and highlighted Appendix 3 of the report circulated with the agenda which included a flow chart and narrative on the process and the role of members and the public. He indicated that member call-in of planning applications provided the opportunity for dialogue with planning officers whilst leaving the call-in option open.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee on 26 November 2020 be dealt with as detailed below:

 

That in accordance with the Constitution the following recommendations stand adjourned without debate until the next meeting of the Council on 23 February 2021.

 

Procedure Rule 36

(a) That Procedure Rule 36 be amended to read “Any motion under Procedure Rule 12 (Motions on Notice), to vary or revoke these Rules shall, when proposed and seconded, stand adjourned without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council”;

 

(b) That Procedure Rule 36 (as amended) be moved from Sub Part C (General Provisions) to Sub Part A (Council Meetings).

 

Recommendation (c)-(m) including the following change was approved

 

Neighbourhood Forum Call-in of Planning applications

(e) That the power to call-in planning applications to Committee should not be extended to Neighbourhood Forums.

 

Voting:  as follows

 

7(a)(c) For – 66, Against – 1, Abstentions – 7

7(a)(d) For – 66, Against – 1, Abstentions – 7

7(a)(e) For – 67, Against – 0, Abstentions – 7

7(a)(f) For – 67, Against – 0, Abstentions – 7

7(a)(g) For – 67, Against – 0, Abstentions – 7

7(a)(h) For – 67, Against – 0, Abstentions – 7

7(a)(i) For – 67, Against – 0, Abstentions – 7

7(a)(j) For – 43, Against – 22, Abstentions – 9

7(a)(k) For – 67, Against – 0, Abstentions – 7

7(a)(l) For – 67, Against – 0, Abstentions – 7

7(a)(m) For – 67, Against – 0, Abstentions – 7

 

Councillor Farquhar wished to be recorded as voting for (c) to (m) except (j) which he voted against.

 

7b – Licensing Committee 10 December 2020 - Minute No 15 - New BCP Council Sex Establishment Policy

 

The Chairman of the Licensing Committee presented the report on the new BCP Council Sex Establishment Policy to control and regulate such premises.  She explained the recommendation was to put the policy in train and to adopt the relevant legislation, that was, Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended by Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009) which was seconded by Councillor Bagwell.

 

Councillors were advised of the requirements to prepare, adopt and publish a new Policy including the timescale, legislative requirements, consultation and implementation of the BCP Council Sex Establishment Policy by 1 April 2021 including the publication of a notice in the local paper following the adoption of the relevant legislation.

 

The recommendation arising from the meeting of the Licensing Committee on 10 December 2020 relating to the above was approved.

 

Voting: Agreed

 

Councillor Trent abstained from the above decision.

 

7c - Licensing Committee 10 December 2020 - Minute No.16 - New BCP Council Scrap Metal Dealer Policy

 

The Chairman of the Licensing Committee presented the report on the New BCP Council Scrap Metal Dealer Policy.  She explained that this was a new policy which had been developed in accordance with best practice and in accordance with the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013.  Councillors were advised that the adoption of a formal policy would regulate scrap metal offences. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Bagwell.

 

A Councillor reported that he fully supported and welcomed the development and implementation of the policy. In response to a question Councillor Judes Butt explained there had not been a stated policy previously and that this was a new policy for the BCP area.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Licensing Committee on 10 December 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Agreed

 

Councillor Trent abstained from the above decision.

 

7d - Cabinet 16 December 2020 - Minute No. 263 - Housing Development Scheme - Cynthia House (Cynthia Close, Poole)

 

The Portfolio Holder for Homes presented the report on the proposed housing development scheme at Cynthia House, Cynthia Close, Poole and the financing arrangements for the scheme as set out on the agenda which was seconded by Councillor Haines.

 

Councillors welcomed the scheme which would be built to passive house standards, but some were concerned about the building costs and one member raised a question on the number of units.  The Portfolio Holder reported on the cost of passive house standards and the communal areas.  He explained that the unit costs would be at market rate with a payback of 50 years which was not unusual.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet on 16 December 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Agreed

 

Councillor Butler abstained from the above decision.

 

7e - Cabinet 16 December 2020 - Minute No. 269 - Quarter 2 Budget Monitoring 2020-21 and Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) Update Report

 

The Leader of the Council presented the report on the Quarter 2 Budget Monitoring 2020-21 and Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) Updateas set out on the agenda. He highlighted key headlines including the reduction  in the deficit for 2020/21 down from £13.4m to £10.3m and the level of investment £310k into children’s services £350k into transformation and £365k into the 100 day plan priorities of the administration which included significant investment in street cleansing in Christchurch, support for mental health and homelessness and to address antisocial behaviour. The Leader of the Council outlined the recommendations as set out on the agenda which were seconded by Councillor Broadhead.

 

Councillors considered the recommendations comments included reviewing previous infrastructure spending and loss of capital funding for future infrastructure needs, the level of reserves in comparison to other Councils, and if the Leader could provide any reassurance on partners providing financial contributions for the freeport project.

 

The Leader of the Council in summing up explained that there would be more flexibility on infrastructure investment, he acknowledged that reserves were lower than they had been but that the position had improved since June 2020.  In respect of the freeport bid and investment he explained that partners had invested significant time in the project. The project was being delivered at pace which was why consultants were being used rather than Council officers.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet on 16 December 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: For – 49, Against – 0, Abstention – 25

 

7f - Cabinet 16 December 2020 - Minute No. 271 - Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

 

The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability presented the report on the Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document as set out on the agenda.  He explained that this document replaced the three predecessor authorities’ documents and how the SPD fundamentally differed with the introduction of a zonal approach with much reduced and in many cases no requirement for on-site parking in most town and district centres.  He reported that it strengthened requirements for cycle parking, included measures to promote electric vehicles and car clubs and was also designed to improve the viability of new home building in well-connected locations so making it easier to meet the Council’s housing targets and speed up the shift to sustainable transport. The Portfolio Holder referred to the cross-party working group and in particular thanked Councillors Phipps and Hadley for their work on the SDP and confirmed that the Overview & Scrutiny Board on 7 December 2020 and Cabinet on 16 December had examined its contents. The Portfolio Holder indicated that there had been concerns raised on parking requirements for HMOs and the allocation of areas into particular zones and it would be wise, if it appeared necessary, over the next 12 months to tweak the SPD as appropriate.

 

Councillor Broadhead in seconding the proposal acknowledged the need to review the SPD as appropriate and explained that it does not ban any development in the urban areas from including parking areas whilst highlighting difficulties experienced in mandating parking in some developments.

 

Councillors in considering the adoption of the SPD commented and raised questions including welcoming the SPD and that electric charges would be in all new homes, expressing concern that the justification was around viability, explaining that the justification should be because it was the right thing to do for those who wished to live in town and city centres without a car, that those purchasing a property with no parking provision would be excluded through the deeds of their property from obtaining a residents parking permit and therefore how do we prevent people from using different addresses to obtain such parking permits. A Councillor emphasised that the SPD needed to be brought up to date and was a well-prepared document but would exacerbate on street parking pressures in the most congested parts of the conurbation.  He highlighted the potential conflict that would result and that the views of residents submitted as part of the consultation had largely been ignored and stressed that the SPD was not practicable, enforceable or acceptable to local residents. It was suggested that if there was no parking there should be a guarantee that residents would not have a car and car free developments should be marketed as such.  Councillors highlighted the implications for those with disabilities, concerns about whether the  public transport infrastructure would be able to support these proposals, that the SPD enables developers to consider car free sites, the opportunity to develop car clubs and seeking clarity on the status of the SPD. 

 

The Portfolio Holder in summing up reported that the SPD does have policy status but that there was the flexibility to include car parking where required.  He explained that in respect of viability because of the requirement to provide car parking spaces in many cases that were not actually required it meant those carrying out developments were only able to build a smaller number of units when the Council wanted a large amount of units to be built which would tackle pressure on housing targets and in the areas where the Council prefers to keep lower density it would be able to do so because the town and urban centres would be bearing that weight rather than having to push it out into other areas.  Other comments included a worry about having limited or no car parking on new build developments the Portfolio Holder reported that this approach was widespread and was effective,  he explained that car free developments would be tied so alternative addresses could not be used to secure a parking permit and highlighted that such development would drive the requirement for sustainable public transport.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet on 16 December 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: For – 53, Against – 8, Abstention – 12

 

Councillor Edwards did not speak or vote on the above item.

 

The meeting was adjourned from 22:05 to 22:10

 

7g - Cabinet 16 December 2020 - Minute No. 272 - Dorset Nature Park

 

The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Deputy Leader of the Council presented the report on the Dorset Nature Park as set out on the agenda. He explained that eutrophication created excess nitrates in Poole Harbour and in order to keep building homes it was necessary to offset the impact of nitrates to release homes with the creation of the Dorset Nature Park funded by CIL funds. Councillor Mark Anderson seconded the proposal.

 

Councillors commented on the proposals including the location of the park,  accessibility for BCP residents preferably via sustainable transport, the need to concentrate on managing appropriate sewage treatment, asking if the issue had been considered by the O&S Board if not why not, if there were too many nature parks there could be a shortage of rough grass land, that the green space was being urbanised, more work was needed if an area of land was to be purchased as it was necessary to consider all options, a wish to see more open land accessible to people by reducing sewage or controlling it, that 180,000 tonnes of raw sewerage had been pumped into Poole Harbour, a suggestion that this matter be deferred and referred back to the Overview & Scrutiny Board for further detailed work.

 

The Portfolio Holder in summing up acknowledged that it was not an ideal solution but explained this was a short-term option and this project was about removing agriculture land to resolve an ecological issue.

 

The Chairman reported that Councillor Le Poidevin had not provided any wording for her suggested deferral therefore he would take the vote on the original proposal.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet on 16 December 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: For – 39, Against – 25, Abstention – 8

 

Councillor Farquhar wished to be recorded as voting against the above decision.

 

Councillors Cheryl Johnson and Trent had left the meeting.

 

Item 7h - Cabinet 16 December 2020 - Minute No. 274 - Housing Scheme at Wilkinson Drive, Bournemouth

 

The Portfolio Holder for Homes presented the report on the housing scheme at Wilkinson Drive, Bournemouth which was a Council owned site providing social housing for rent and outlined the financing arrangements for the scheme as set out on the agenda. The proposal was seconded by Councillor White.

 

Councillors welcomed this social housing scheme whilst commenting on the costs and why it was not being built to passive house standards. A ward councillor welcomed the development and referred to the site constraints which had an impact on the ability to build to passive house standards and that the costings were due to the constraints on the site and the contingency for the scheme explaining that any underspend would be returned to the HRA. It was suggested that where the Council was not achieving passive house standards it clarified why that level was not being reached.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability highlighted that there was a cost for the certificate for passive house standards and even when the Council was building to equivalent standards that the issue should be to look at the carbon savings for the development. 

 

The Portfolio for Homes in summing up commented on the scheme costs and explained that if the costs for the communal areas were excluded the build costs would be reduced considerably.  He reported that he was pleased that the scheme was a development for social rent and explained that 21 tonnes per annum of carbon savings would be achieved. The Portfolio highlighted that building to passive house standards cost 15-20% more and it was important to ensure that the site was viable.  The Portfolio Holder explained that the scheme would be compliant with energy use as insulation standards, include photovoltaic panels provide free electricity, reduce the service charge to tenants, include triple glazing and additional cavity insultation.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet on 16 December 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Unanimous

 

Councillor Farquhar wished to be recorded as voting for the above decision.

 

Item 7i - Cabinet 16 December 2020 - Minute No 275 - Housing Scheme at Duck Lane (Phase 2), Bournemouth

 

The Portfolio Holder for Homes presented the report on the housing scheme at Duck Lane, Bournemouth and the financing arrangements for the scheme as set out on the agenda. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Mark Anderson.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet on 16 December 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Unanimous