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 4 clear working days before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a 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 Leader advised that there had been no questions or petitions received on this occasion but that nine statements had been received from members of the public in relation to Agenda Item 17 (Call-in of Decision – Tatnam Road ETRO – Advice to Cabinet).
Statement from Brian Gracey
As a resident of Tatnam Road my belief is that this Road should be reopened. It already is, effectively to motorcycles and motor scooters.
Continuing closure will have an equally negative effect, particularly when the similarly ill-thought-out changes to Wimborne Road take place in the near future.
I would make one further observation. HGV traffic could usefully be banned from Tatnam Road; it really is not wide enough and was regularly used as an escape route for vehicles missing signs noting the weight limit over the nearby railway bridge.
Statement from Linda Naylor
I am a grandparent of a child at Oakdale Junior school where I am also Chair of Governors.
As a cyclist I am delighted with the blocking of Tatnam Road and Birds Hill. Both make my cycle to SML church and to school meetings much safer which encourages me not to use my car.
My granddaughter now cycles home from school because the Tatnam road closure allows her to cycle to Old Town area without crossing any roads. If reopened she will no longer be safe cycling home. I used to pick her up at Tatnam Road and Poole High and Oakdale parents can now safely collect there.
Statement from Teresa Trafford
As a resident of Tatnam Road I wish to put the case forward to continue with the closure.
1) This is a residential road not a cut through to save a few minutes journey time.
2) The closure has been welcomed by walkers, runners, and cyclists.
3) There has been no significant increase in traffic on neighbouring roads.
4) The road is no longer a rat run, putting children at risk.
5) The closure is in line with government policy on reducing traffic and encouraging people to exercise.
Statement from the Keyhole Bridge User Safety Group
Your LCWIP identifies Tatnam Road as part of the primary cycling network, creating a corridor stretching from Stanley Green Road to Whitecliff, via Garland Road, Birds Hill Road, Poole Park and Keyhole Bridge. Reopening Tatnam Road will increase traffic in Garland Road and Tatnam Road, making the route unsuitable for cycling without significant alternative, and potentially costly, mitigation. We therefore support Councillor Greene’s decision to retain the Tatnam Road ETRO. We appreciate that the referral to Cabinet is on procedural grounds but note that Councillor Greene’s decision to retain the Tatnam Road ETRO is procedurally entirely consistent with previous decisions.
Statement from Corinne and Oliver Martin
We are in full support of Cllr Greene's decision to keep the end point closure on Tatnam Road.
How will the council ensure the safety of school children, pedestrians and cyclists on Tatnam Road, should the decision be made to remove the closure?
Would the council be installing severe traffic calming measures such as on Recreation Road prior to removal?
The 20mph limit made no changes to speeding prior to the road closure and cannot be seen as a solution to the problem of speeding and reckless driving on this residential road.
Statement from David Ricketts
Tatnam road was closed in relation to Conservative government, travel guidelines. However, it’s Poole Conservatives who are attempting to reverse this positive decision.
On the day of the Dec. 6th meeting, I read on BCP’s website the initiative for making school runs much safer. Therefore, completely at odds with Poole Conservatives actions.
This is obviously a political issue rather than about safety for resident and pedestrians.
Poole People Party, were voted in because they care about local ward issues, as proven by their support of the road closure. The same wards are disillusioned by Poole Conservatives and their irresponsible actions.
Statement from Clive & Bernadett Matlock
We believe clear bias was shown in the room at the 6 December meeting, the outcome was premeditated and a pointless exercise of "going through the motions" to justify that predetermined outcome.
Our concern is the 15 December Cabinet meeting will be just as undemocratic.
Councillor Greene’s logical decision was in support of Safety Concerns, BCP’s "Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan” and "The new you can walk, cycle or scoot to school"
Cabinet members must show vision for the long-term safety and environmental benefits of the road closure, and not just seeking populist votes for outlying areas.
Statement from Paul Blunden
“I support upholding the original closure of Tatnam Road and disregarding the call-in, which was unconstitutional. It lacked any evidence the original decision was driven by a bias towards minority opinions. No causal correlation was proven.
The committee failed to appreciate that the decision was not based solely on opinions but drew on other factual sources of information. It's no surprise that local residents are closest to those same facts, in particular road safety issues. Thus, resident views corroborated rather than biased the report. Re-opening the road will reduce road safety and consequently make councillors personally liable for accidents.”
Statement from Caroline Blunden
I support keeping Tatnam Road closed permanently.
Local ward councillors who are closest to the local traffic situation fairly laid out all the facts and could see the untrue objections. I feared the closure would increase my own commute but in practice this turned out to be untrue, therefore the safety benefits outweigh any perceived inconvenience. The call-in sets a dangerous precedent where every decision is subject to individual public opinion rather than councillors fulfilling their duty to act for all constituents, not just a loud minority, who have been fuelled by misinformation and overstated the impact of the closure.