The deadline for questions to be submitted to the Monitoring Officer is 15 January 2021.
Minutes:
Question from Councillor Mark Howell
The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration was quoted in the Echo article discussing the unsuccessful Future High Streets bid published on 28th December as follows: “We are pressing ahead with some major plans for Poole High Street which we aim to be transformative.” Given that the only publicly released initiative that has secured delivery funding is the Heritage Action Zone project, which is currently allocated the relatively small sum of £1.25 million, please could the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and/or Leader Member for Poole Regeneration set out the major plans to which he referred.
Response from Councillor Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Deputy Leader of the Council
I would like to thank Councillor Howell for his question.
As he will have noticed, Poole Regeneration is such a major priority for this administration that it made its way as one of the five key areas of focus as part of our Big Plan.
In order to truly put that plan into action, we have to ensure that actual delivery of regeneration is a priority and built into the system. For too long, many good ideas and plans have been drawn up, but they have never progressed their way to actual delivery on the ground, as very little thought has been given to how to actually bring them forward. Many have spent a lot of time on the why, what and where, but almost no time on the how and when. In my view, this is the wrong way round. There is no point in drawing up fancy plans if you have no idea on how you will bring them forward.
Accordingly, whilst also continuing the vital work on the what and where, we will be bringing forward a paper at the next Cabinet meeting titled The Future of Regeneration across the BCP Area. This paper and plan will focus particularly on how we ensure that we have the skills, funds and delivery mechanisms to actually bring forward regeneration across the BCP area, and Poole especially, at pace and scale.
We need to move firmly away from the broken method of drawing pretty plans on a page with no thought about how to get them built. This transformative plan will fix that and I look forward to being part of the administration that will actually deliver regeneration rather than just talk about it.
Councillor Howell asked why it had taken five months get to this stage and why it had not been released to Councillors before now. Councillor Broadhead explained that the paper coming forward to Cabinet would set out how the plans will be put in place as delivery was key.
Question from Councillor Vikki Slade
Since its inception in 2019, Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council has been clear that it is very much open for business and ambitious about the future. Both the unity alliance administration and this new administration have talked about transparency and consultation on every level and have worked to shake off some of the shadows of the legacy councils.
It is crucial that councillors can openly engage with business and with those who seek to invest in our area and that the public can be confident that those discussions are taking place in a structured way and with the officers not only present but documenting the meetings.
The Member Engagement Forum was introduced in late 2019 to enable developers to bring their ideas at an early stage to those cllrs who are not involved in the planning process for their views and to get a steer on our vision for the future. They provide a safe space for the sharing of ideas and avoid the risks associated with private meetings. Since the change of administration every meeting has been cancelled due to ‘lack of business’ but we are told that developers are keen to invest in our towns.
Can the portfolio holder explain what action has been taken by himself and his senior planners to encourage developers to showcase their ideas as was done under the previous administration and when we might see this helpful forum return in a virtual way so that members can share their collective vision for BCP?
Response from Councillor Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Deputy Leader of the Council
I would like to thank Councillor Slade for her question. The Member Engagement Forum, which was launched in 2019, was put on hold by the last administration at the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020. This was a completely appropriate decision in the circumstances.
I am as keen as anyone to get deeper engagement between those bringing forward development sites and councillors – especially as we have some large and important sites come through the system. As such, working with Officers since the end of last year, we have been working on how we could restart the paused engagement forum but, crucially, improve it.
Whilst the previous forum was a good way for developers to have a extended slot to brief councillors of their coming plans, the forum was restricted in its formal membership and lacked the ability, in my view, to do what it should be doing – having a productive and early conversation on how developing plans could actually be improved. This can only really happen effectively is the forum puts Members of the Planning Committee at its front and centre, and I have therefore been working with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, who in turn has been liaising with the committee members, to finalise arrangements for a new, improved engagement forum. This would have better engagement from councillors of both the wider council AND the planning committee members.
By getting planning committee members involved in the pre-planning stage of major developments, we should be able to more effectively input into the process and improve the quality of development in our area. This needs to involve the planning committee members and is considered to be good practice.
I understand that the Chairman of the planning committee has finalised arrangements for how this would work with his committee and I look forward to launching the new and improved developer major projects engagement forum – which will need a more catchy name! – shortly.
Question from Councillor David Brown
As the Portfolio Holder is aware, the Beryl Bike Share scheme was launched across Bournemouth and Poole in 2019, and the Unity Alliance administration expanded this service to include Christchurch in 2020, bringing about a common service offering to all residents and Council Tax payers across the BCP area.
While there was publicity for the addition of e-scooters to the Beryl scheme in January 2021, what was not mentioned was that at the same time the original Council contracted Beryl bike share scheme was withdrawn from residents across large parts of North Bournemouth and North Poole covering Bear Cross, Bearwood, West Howe, East Howe, Kinson, Northbourne and parts of Redhill and Ensbury Park.
When it is Council policy to encourage active travel through the Transforming Travel – Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) programme, and these areas include routes where investment will be made to encourage cycling, how does the portfolio holder justify the withdrawal if this service from residents in these areas?
At a time when service provision and Council Tax is being harmonised across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, how does the Portfolio Holder justify introducing an inequality in service provision to the residents of North Bournemouth and North Poole?
As an active user of this service across this part of the conurbation myself, can he explain to me why not all users of this service were notified of this change and were simply left to find out about it when they wanted to use the service and discovered that the bikes had been removed, without any communication or consultation with ward members or service users?
Response from Cllr Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability
BCP’s Bike Share scheme with Beryl has been well received by both residents and visitors, with over 275 000 journeys undertaken since launch. The operating area of 140 km2 with 323 parking bays makes the scheme one of the largest in Europe.
All bikes are GPS tracked and this provides Beryl with accurate origin/destination data for all journeys undertaken. Ridership of the scheme is continually monitored and analysis showed that usage in the North Poole and North Bournemouth areas has unfortunately been low.
The Bike Share operation in both Poole and Bournemouth is provided at no cost to BCP Council, with Beryl funding the bikes and all ongoing maintenance. Whilst the Council has a close working partnership with Beryl and is keen to see Bike Share develop, ultimately Beryl are responsible for the operation of the scheme in these areas and make the commercial decisions.
During the six months up until the 13 bays in question were withdrawn from service, each generated an average of just 0.36 rides per day. This is only a quarter of the average for bays elsewhere in BCP. Although I am disappointed by it, I can therefore understand Beryl’s commercial decision to withdraw service from the North Poole and North Bournemouth areas of the scheme. Ultimately we need the overall scheme to be commercially viable if it is to continue and flourish as we hope.
Beryl have told me that users were notified by a direct email sent to any rider that had picked up or parked a bike in any of the 13 bays during the previous 30 days. This amounted to 77 customers, out of 50 000 users of the scheme overall: which again points to how little use those bays were generating. They say they received comments from 2 scheme users that they were not informed - however upon investigation this was due to both customers having duplicate accounts. No further comments have been received.
Notices have also been displayed at the closed bays and the locations no longer appear on the App.
Beryl have reassured me that the revised operating area is only a temporary measure. The Council liaise regularly with Beryl at monthly project meetings and I have asked to be kept updated on progress in the hope that the bays can be brought back into use as the weather improves and the demand increases. I can reassure Cllr Brown that we will be pressing for this to be as early as possible.
The Council will continue to work in partnership with Beryl to develop the Bike Share scheme across the conurbation. The forthcoming Transforming Travel corridors (with segregated cycle facilities) will provide an excellent opportunity to further encourage the demand for Bike Share services and ensure provision in the future.
Councillor Brown asked if the Portfolio Holder would give a commitment to reintroduce the beryl bikes in North Bournemouth and North Poole in keeping with the Council’s policy to support active travel options. Councillor Mike Greene explained that this was not a decision for the Council but a decision for Beryl and therefore he could not give that commitment but that he very much hoped that as the weather improved so would demand and that Beryl would be able to reintroduce those bays. He also referred to the transforming travel corridors and as they were introduced that this would increase the demand for cycling an bay would be available all year round.
Question from Councillor George Farquhar
In the ward I represent there is the installation of a pair of Vehicle Activated Signs that are activated to flash the speed limit when a vehicle approaches in excess of the posted speed limit.
These are installed on the Overcliff Road as a traffic calming measure. I have noted they are frequently triggered by vehicles approaching driving in excess of the 30mph speed limit. I have noted this when I am walking in the area both on weekdays and weekends and different times of the day.
Can I ask what information is available to the Local Authority for how often this pair are triggered and how the Local Authority gauges and implements changes based on the empirical evidence of the efficiency of calming traffic by reducing speed of not only this pair of VAS but all the many VAS across the conurbation (it would be useful to know how many VAS units are installed and active in the BCP geography)
Response from Councillor Mike Greene, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability
We deploy two types of speed activated warning signs across the BCP area, mains powered fixed/permanent VAS (Vehicle Activated Signs) and battery operated mobile/temporary SIDs (Speed Indicator Devices). SID deployment times will depend on battery life.
In general, these signs have an activation threshold above which the sign is automatically triggered by approaching vehicles; this is usually around 1mph to 3mph above the posted speed limit (so 31-33 mph in a 30mph limit area).
We do not currently collect information about how often these signs activate. However, this is something that I would be happy to look into. There are various other methods or calculating speeds on our roads, including speed surveys and the Council is currently looking at how we might try to access speed data from external sources as well.
Although we do not continually measure speed reductions achieved through the use of Vehicle Activated Signs locally, there is very good national research available which points to an average reduction of 1.4mph.
The Council currently operates 52 Fixed VAS sites across BCP and 28 SID signs covering 91 mobile sites across BCP.
Councillor Farquhar asked if the Portfolio Holder would monitor the traffic on the above route as the was concern from residents in his ward. He asked if the Portfolio Holder could give a rough timeframe to actively monitor this location. Councillor Mike Greene explained that speed surveys were undertaken but there was a waiting list. He asked Councillor Farquhar to send a request for a speed survey he would include it on the waiting list and when the results were received if there were excessive speeds greater than expected it would have to be looked for speed reduction measures.
Question from Councillor Andy Hadley
BCP Council participate in the Western Gateway Sub-National Transport partnership, with authorities across Dorset, Wiltshire, Bath, Bristol, and the Gloucester areas. It is the method by which Government will give any significant capital funds for Transport priorities over coming years.
A Strategic Transport Plan document for the next 5 years was finalised at the end of last year. When the portfolio-holder asked me, I agreed that, since no formal decision was required of us, it perhaps did not need to come as a paper to Council, but I suggested that a link to the document be circulated to all Councillors. This did not happen, the link is https://westerngatewaystb.org.uk/strategy/
Can the portfolio-holder please explain why he chose not to share this document with his colleagues?
I was disappointed when reading this 5 year strategy, that the Urban Mass Transit aspects of the document now only cover points radiating out from the Bristol conurbation, whereas the draft I contributed to also highlighted the importance of this for the BCP conurbation.
Instead, new wording was added;
“A package of improvements to unlock key development site located close to Bournemouth Royal Hospital, reduce congestion on A3060 Castle Lane, A338, provide for sustainable transport improvements and improved access for cluster of key employment sites.”
The phenomenon of induced traffic is well researched, and Castle Lane already suffers hugely from it. Extra roads will add more congestion.
Can the portfolio-holder please assure Council that the intention to seek Western Gateway Funding is to pursue strategic sustainable transport solutions, not just for the area as stated, but to reduce congestion and improve productivity across the whole conurbation, and to aim to think big on transport solutions that will achieve this?
Indeed I would have expected to see something like this namechecked as an ambition for Infrastructure in the Big Plan. When will it be added and when will serious planning commence please?
Response from Cllr Mike Greene, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability
I do apologise for any perceived delay in publicising the document as I agree with Cllr Hadley that it could be useful for Members. Unfortunately the weblink which Cllr Hadley provided was actually to the old draft plan as the final version had not yet been adopted. BCP officers contacted the Western Gateway Programme team and it was noted that all member local authorities needed to indicate approval before publication. This was confirmed at a senior officer meeting held early this month and we will be placing the document on our website very shortly.
The process of finalising the Sub National Strategy took on board the views of many across the area. It is important to stress that the Strategy itself is only for an interim short-term period and that the content reflects only those elements that were deemed to have potential as being shovel ready within the more immediate 5-year timescale. The Urban Mass Transit hopes for the Bristol conurbation met that time requirement but, unfortunately, although we in BCP are looking into the technical feasibility of mass transit at the moment, we are not at an advanced enough stage to realistically and credibly say we could do the same. Cllr Hadley will know that nobody will be more pleased than me if we are in the position to include Urban Mass Transit proposals for BCP within future iterations of the Plan.
I do not concur with Cllr Hadley’s feelings on Wessex Fields. While great efforts are being made to reduce the amount of car use necessary to enable the development, some road improvements are required to ensure optimal use of this key and welcome employment site. The dogmatic approach of the previous Administration would not have allowed this. Moreover, it is hoped and expected that new roads associated with the development will help bring much needed relief to the congestion referred to by my colleague.
I would wish to reassure Members that much work is currently being undertaken for the BCP area towards our refresh of our local position while seeking to take on board the very latest Government guidance for walking, cycling, bus and rail. We are seeking to pursue strategic sustainable transport solutions to help reduce congestion and improve productivity across the whole conurbation, and these will form an integral part of our work as part of the Western Gateway Subnational Transport Body.
Question from Councillor Mark Howell
Now that a full planning application has been submitted for development of the empty employment land at Sterte Avenue West, only a couple of viable sites remain for relocation of the Wilts & Dorset bus depot. Its relocation is essential for the regeneration of the Seldown area adjacent to the Dolphin Centre so please could the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration confirm that the Council is treating relocation as a priority and actively and urgently working with Wilts & Dorset to secure a site for relocation.
Response from Councillor Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Deputy Leader of the Council
I thank Councillor Howell for his question.
I would challenge the assertion that Councillor Howell has presented as fact: “Its relocation is essential for the regeneration of the Seldown area adjacent to the Dolphin Centre”.
As the previous Portfolio Holder, Councillor Howell spent almost 18 months on a costly and time consuming piece of work looking to where he would like to relocate the bus station and depot. The end result of this were proposals that were undeliverable on land which we didn’t own.
The development of the Seldown area and others remains a priority, and we will be bringing forward a paper at next month’s Cabinet outlining how we will be looking to ensure that delivery of these projects is prioritised.
Councillor Howell asked a supplementary question on the paper being submitted to Cabinet and what was the viable option. Councillor Broadhead explained that delivery was key in respect of any potential projects.