To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution, which 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 a public question is 4 clear working days before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a public statement is midday the working day before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.
Minutes:
The Chairman advised that a number of public issues had been submitted for the meeting:
A – Public Questions
Public Question from Susan Stockwell
Does this council consider littering emanating from licensed premises a matter of public nuisance, whether for alcohol licensing or take away licensing?
Reply from Councillor Bobbie Dove, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Regulatory Services
The prevention of public nuisance is one of the Licensing objectives for all licensed premises, including alcohol sales and late-night refreshments. This would include take-aways operating after 11.00pm and would include litter.
Licensed premises, particularly those operating after 23:00 hours and into the early morning, may affect people living or working in the vicinity of these premises. Therefore, we would expect that the applicant’s operating schedule would contain practical steps to prevent potential disturbance to local residents, this would include litter in the immediate vicinity.
In some instances, litter emanating from licensed premises may be as result of failure by businesses to comply with ‘duty of care’ obligations to make suitable waste collection arrangements. Where this should happen, the Council is piloting a scheme where an enforcement company called WISE will engage with businesses to work alongside the Council and make improvements where necessary. This would include engagement with licensed premises, to ensure that they comply with these obligations. Should they fail to do so, fixed penalty notices can be issued where appropriate.
Public Question from Vicky Spence
How are residents near Culliford Crescent supposed to be able to object about a 5g mast going barely metres from their homes and affecting other homes further up the hill when all have been pretty much isolating since March 2020?
Residents were not informed, and homes are now blighted by an unsightly 18 metre mast towering over them.
I only found the Yellow planning notice after it had been erected and the weblink went to a blank page, the phone number was an old Poole Council number. How are we to find out information when the information supplied is WRONG?
Reply from Councillor Philip Broadhead, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Development, Growth & Regeneration
The 5G mast proposal near Culliford Crescent was subject to the required statutory notification following the submission of the application in June 2021. We need to look further into why residents didn’t submit comments to the proposal but all statutory requirements regarding publicity were carried out as they always are. An objection to the application was received from a ward Cllr representing their residents raising issues that were then considered in the assessment of the application.
Unfortunately, due the way the permitted development regime operates, the Council is bound by a strict process within which to determine 5G mast applications, and whilst fully sympathising with the concerns raised in the question, this application was ultimately determined in accordance with the legislation. We are, however, always reviewing how applications are notified and will ensure that any issues raised will be looked at further to ensure the Council’s notification procedures remain robust and engaging for residents.
Public Question from Dr David Young
Since 5G masts are sprouting up all over the boroughs, can the BCP council undertake to extend the safety-monitoring of electromagnetic radiation that it is already doing in the Lansdowne area throughout the BCP area, to ensure that no-one is exposed beyond the maximum recommended level for technologies using frequencies over 2 GHz in public spaces, as outlined by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)?
Reply from Councillor Philip Broadhead, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Development, Growth & Regeneration
5G Masts garnet just sprouting up all over the BCP area, but rather the whole world. Indeed, many other cities and towns of comparable size in this country are now further ahead in the roll-out then we are.
When we launched our own 5G network, we took the stop of monitoring the levels to give assurance to the small number of people who remain worried about this proven technology. These are publicly available and show all levels are not just within the limits, but very obviously so.
We don’t have the capacity, funding or indeed the mandate to monitor those of others. However, the useful readings from our own equipment do prove that the levels are minimal and well below the recommended guidelines.
B – Statements
Public Statement from Philip Stanley-Watts
What with the tragic loss of trees and hedgerows at West Parley, just outside the BCP area there needs to be a natural environment heritage protection order within the planning process. This could be like the legislation within the listing process for this Country’s built heritage. Then there are TPOs but is that robust enough within our planning framework for the protection of trees.
Public Statement from Alex McKinstry
I deplore the decision by Bournemouth’s charter trustees to recommend the town for city status. Residents have not been formally consulted on this; when the Echo suggested, on 9 June, that Bournemouth might apply for city status, the comments beneath that article were overwhelmingly negative. The prospective drawbacks to city status would be very numerous: landlords would start charging city rents; high-rise and high-density development would increase; while Poole and Christchurch would be relegated, potentially, to mere decorative outposts. I hope all councillors will consider these points, therefore, before voting on Item 10 of this evening’s agenda.
Public Statement for Tina Cresswell (read out by the Chief Executive in her absence)
The utopian and fanciful ‘Big Plan’ for ambitious commercial development in the BCP area has set puny and underwhelming targets for carbon emissions, and no target at all to remedy the appalling sewage contamination of BCP beaches. This is at odds with the rosy image of the future as presented in the Big Plan. There is no target for tree planting, home insulation, wind-power, or provision of a community energy system generating low-carbon electricity. BCP please try harder.
C – Petitions
There were no petitions submitted for this meeting.