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:-
The deadline for the submission of public questions is ordinarily 4 clear working days before the meeting. However, due to the late publication of the report relating to item 6, the deadline for the submission of questions has been extended to 9am Tuesday 27 September 2022.
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.
The Leader advised that there had been no questions or petitions received on this occasion but that five statements had been received from members of the public, four in relation to Agenda Item 7 (Bereavement Services business plan phase one update report and options appraisal for the future) and one in relation to Agenda Item 6 (Finance Strategy Update).
Statement from Jonathan Martin on Agenda Item 7 - Bereavement Services business plan phase one update report and options appraisal for the future
Without a functioning crematorium at Poole, BCP is seriously at risk when an unexpected failure happens at Bournemouth Crematorium e.g fire or flood.
Failure to immediately replace the cremators at Poole, increases the carbon footprint of the council, as more people travel to Bournemouth for funerals, and more coffins are transported a longer distance for direction cremation, committal, or full services.
Further the Council's opportunity to serve the community, and create a resilient business are seriously jeopardised.
Having replaced a cremator, do the research about future investment in alternative technology, ready for the demise of Bournemouth cremators.
Insert cremators now.
Statement from Nick Douch on Agenda Item 7 - Bereavement Services business plan phase one update report and options appraisal for the future
The financial analysis reported is flawed. A proper analysis shows strong commercial return on investment and availability of private investment. Future capital costs at Bournemouth make alternative investment essential
Strong and increasing demand exists for public facilities which cannot be met by facilities without excess and unacceptable travel .
Private facilities distort demand and prevent choice.
The Petition shows strong local public support .
Transporting loved ones to Bournemouth is distressing.
Bournemouth crematorium will need short term significant capital investment. Council tax payers expect local services for loved ones.
One bariatric cremator at Poole essential
Statement from John Ainsworth (Chairman of Churches Together Poole) on Agenda Item 7 - Bereavement Services business plan phase one update report and options appraisal for the future
1 Don’t delay decisions until 25/26. Poole will lose business permanently.
2 No increase in carbon emissions rather a reduction.
(a) the carbon emissions in Bournemouth will be reduced by the same amount with a cremator in Poole.
(a) There will be a saving in travel across the conurbation to Bournemouth crematorium.
3 Get an experts report now on electric cremators rather than delay. Depending on the report install either an electric or gas cremator in Poole now.
4 Bournemouth Crematorium only has one bariatric cremator. A bariatric cremator in Poole will provide back up.
Statement from the Rev Paul Hockley on Agenda Item 7 - Bereavement Services business plan phase one update report and options appraisal for the future
1. When people in Poole realise that after a service at the Poole facility the body of their loved one will be transported later with other bodies to Bournemouth for cremation, they are likely to look at alternative venues.
Thus a decline in revenue at Poole.
2. Electric cremators have been installed in Oxford and are apparently functioning well.
No carbon gases harmful to the atmosphere, with a life of 25 years compared to 12 for gas. The larger initial cost is more than repaid by the X2 length of service.
Statement from Philip Gatrell on Agenda Item 6 – Finance Strategy Update
CONTRAVENTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 WHEN KPMG REPORTS WITHHELD FROM REQUESTING COUNCILLORS’ INSPECTION
References: My explanatory email 31.8.22 to Monitoring Officer (MO)&YouTube -- 1st O&SC 2 September @ 1 hour 10 minutes + - Cabinet 7 September @ 34 minutes 18 seconds
Following my request to the CEO to investigate the above subversion of democratic processes affecting all Members, and his emailed response 13.9.22 to “determine the best course of action”, I call for his exercise of Constitutional powers to immediately –
- Ensure MO’s obligatory report to each Member under Local Government & Housing Act 1989 concerning the uncontested contravention of Section 100F of 1972 Act &
- Expedite necessary internal procedures establishing the interactions between MO & decision-making Leader contributing to this unchecked contravention. Taking into account, for example, MO’s email 7.9.22 to me declining to respond substantively, contrary to verbal commitment at meeting 2.9.22.