Transcript

(water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) (water splashing) Good evening members and members of the public and the press and all of those viewing online. And welcome to this full council meeting 23rd of April 2024. I'm Councillor Leslie Deadman and as chairman of BCP council, I shall be chairing the meeting and I'm supported by my vice chair, Councillor Simon Ball. First of all, housekeeping arrangements for the meeting. And can you please note that the meeting is being recorded by the council for live and subsequent broadcast and it will be published on the council website for a minimum of six months. In order to ensure the meeting is managed effectively, can everybody follow the ground rules, which are as follows. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand clearly to indicate. Where there's a consensus in the meeting for a motion, I will ask if there is any dissension. When a formal vote is required, this will be carried out by a show of hands unless a recorded vote is requested, which requires support from a quarter of the members present at this meeting. And could members indicate to me if they are leaving the meeting? We will have a comfort break as appropriate, so could you please avoid leaving the meeting during a debate, obviously, unless it's an emergency. And if anybody wants to raise a point of order, could you please state the applicable constitutional provision? Thank you. And obviously, we assume that all Councillors will uphold the highest standards of conduct during our meeting, and we will all treat each other with courtesy and consideration as we always do. Just a reminder to the gallery that although this meeting is being held in public, it is not a public meeting. The public are in attendance to observe proceedings and the debate, so members of the public must remain silent throughout this meeting. Thank you. And just one other point, because of this particular meeting being in a pre-election period, can I remind members that we must be mindful during our debates that we don't breach politically restricted guidances? We've all had emails about this from our monitoring officers, so I think we can all be very careful on that. Item one, apologies for the meeting. Chief Executive, do we have apologies? Thank you, Chairman. Yes, apologies have been received today from Councillor Julie Bagwell, Councillor Dudes, but Councillor David Dorton Gibson, Councillor Anne Filer, Councillor Rachel Madement, Councillor Karen Rempton, Councillor Judy Richardson and Councillor Lawrence Williams. Thank you. I think that's all the apologies. Right, thank you. Item two, declarations of interest. Chief Executive, can you report on any declarations of interest we've already received? Thanks, Chairman. We haven't had any declarations received from members, but if any member is required, I see a number of hands going up. Could you please just refer to the flow chart that's on the agenda for guidance? Certainly, at least two Councillors have indicated, Chair. Yes, Councillor Moore, I can see you over there. Thank you, Chair. Can I declare an interest in item ten as a trustee of the Teach Trust, Campity of Infinite and Campity of Junior Schools? Thank you, Chair. Again, it's item number nine, Land at Wessex Field, as the appointed governor of the Hospital of Trust, I'll be stepping out. Thank you. Thank you very much, members. And obviously, if something comes up in the meeting, you're very welcome to put your hand up and make a declaration. Agenda item three, confirmation of the minutes. The minutes are of the meeting that we held on the 20th of February, and we reconvened, if you remember, on the 27th of February. We've all had the minutes. Is there any dissension from me confirming the minutes? I take that as a no, so yes, the minutes are agreed by consensus. Thank you, members. All right. Agenda item four, announcements and introductions from the Chairman. Yes, I will just briefly go through where I have been to represent Ballmouth Christchurch and Pool Council from the last full council meetings. So I attended the Ukrainian community sisterhood stories, which, as you can imagine, was very emotional and very beautiful. I welcomed delegates to Ballmouth Christchurch and Pool, who were here for a conference on computing. And I then attended the Youth Parliament Awards. We have two new members of the Youth Parliament and two substitutes as well. And they were wonderful. Those young people do say well. I then went over to the High Sheriff's Awards, which, self-explanatory, the High Sheriff, he gave some awards to members of the community, including some from Pool, which was very cheering. Then, BCP organised, although I don't know who organised all the massive cakes, International Women's Day event, I've never seen so much cake, and a lot of it was distributed to officers afterwards, so we all felt very virtuous. But that was very interesting because there are, at this time, quite a few women in good positions all over the council. Oh, and then I opened the Annual Surgical Conference. My knowledge of surgical things is nothing, so that was very interesting. I attended the reopening of Christchurch's Town Hall, which has had to be refurbished. I then opened the Growth Hub Expo, again, another thing which came to Ballmouth from delegates from all over the country. And I attended the Sir Optomist STEM Challenge Awards. Again, young people, very, very good. I attended Pool Hospital. They have buried a time capsule with a lot of memories of the time of Covid. And again, quite moving and very interesting. And then, at the end of last week, I welcomed the odd fellows to Ballmouth for their conference. That was very informative from my point of view. I had always confused them with odd bins, but they're not. They are odd fellows. And this is the third year that they've chosen Ballmouth, so we must be doing something right. Unfortunately, next year they're going to South End, but I don't think that's anything that we've done wrong. They were very, very interesting, and they do so much good work, very impressive. And then, I think it's tomorrow or the next day, isn't it? I'm representing the Chief Executive and BCP at the funeral of Mr. Paul Roussell, who I'm sure some of us, especially I'm looking over at John, for example. Unfortunately, Mr. Roussell has now died and is having his funeral at Christchurch Priory. He was very instrumental in LGR, as we all rather remember. So I shall be going there. Vice Chairman, have you anything to add on that? Thank you, members. So that was what BCP has been doing in the person of myself. Right, agenda item 5, public issues. Have we got anybody? I can see activity over there. So we first of all have a public question, and I think that's Philip Gattrell, but you're going to read that, Chief Executive. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. This is a public question from Philip Gattrell regarding the Administration's commitment to excruciating accountability to public statements at the Council's meeting on 20 February 2024, profile increasing complaint decisions by the local government and social care Ombudsman against the Council, and contrary to sections 5 and 5A of the cited 1989 Act, internal failure to report those decisions to members. A public statement of the Ordering Government's meeting on 11 April 2024 underscores this concern by explanatory precinct of the correct statutory obligations for incorporation in the Constitution. Ombudsman decisions regarding management, administration and service failures include children's and adults' care planning, the environment and members' conduct. They reflect Council performance and are relevant to not only directly affected members and committees, but also every Council's awareness. Ombudsman decisions currently average six monthly. Following the monitoring officer's obligatory notification of decisions to all members, will the Leader ensure the Council's or Cabinet's actions, including under subsections section 5 or section 5A subsection 9? Thank you, Chief Executive. Yes, I believe that's you then, Leader. Yes, Chair, it is. I'd like to thank Mr Gattrell for his question. It's unfortunate he's not able to ask it himself. The Council's responses to LGSCO, that's local government and social care ombudsman decisions, are appropriately addressed in a number of ways, and according to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. This includes through the Audit Governance Committee, and I would refer Mr Gattrell in particular to the January meeting of this committee where the updated assurance framework was debated and approved by the Council. The monitoring officer has reviewed this and is of the professional opinion that these do not trigger the statutory reporting requirements under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Thank you very much, Leader. The second question comes from Mr Philip Stanley Watts, who is here, I believe. I think I can see you, Mr Stanley Watts. Would you like to ask your question and the Landy Hadley portfolio leader for climate response, environment and energy is going to respond? There we are. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the proper need, the threat of flooding, especially in the south of England and those implications of climate change, could you tell me, Cabinet Member, what the responses from BCP Council, especially as there are need for proper flood defences in this area? Thank you. Councillor HARDLY, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Philip, thank you for your question. The Council's response to climate mitigation was summarised in the Annual Climate Report that came to Cabinet in March. This continues to be developed, but it also needs individuals, companies, and other organisations across the BCP area as our swear to recognise the issue and to take action. Our flooding and coastal erosion risk management team has been developed over recent years and is held in high regard across the region. They are dedicated to bidding for funds and implementing measures to protect our communities and the current work on Hainesbury head long groin and the replacement of a number of wooden groins on the seafront and the maintenance of drains in the clear face are all part of that work. Sea defences around the West Key of Paul are also currently being designed along with 100-year plan for the entire Christchurch Bay. We have just experienced the wettest and warmest march on record and with saturated ground a number of locations have flooded repeatedly. Several areas have cliff along the rural doors that coasts have fallen and we are fortunate that there is sustained investment and long-term thinking in creating plans for the entire sea and harbour frontage of BCP and as you highlight proper flood defences where homes are at risk. Sea level continues to rise and it seems that the modelling is being outpaced by reality. We are also actively looking at the inland flood risks both from river catchments and from extreme rainfall events and an inland surface water management plan is also under development. We will need to work with the environment agency, with water companies, neighbouring local authorities and landowners to better hold water in the landscape and to mitigate the risks. We also need to maintain a focus on other aspects of climate change and mitigation. Thank you. I'm sorry, who is speaking? Are you speaking through the chair, whoever it is? Sorry. Okay. Right, thank you. Adam Osman has submitted a public question regarding 20 miles an hour. Is Mr Osman here at all? Come through then, thank you. And again, Councillor Hadley is going to respond. Great, thank you. Yes, thank you for having me. Okay. This Council declared an environmental emergency as of five years ago. That's five years we should have seen... Pick it quieter, please, thank you. Thank you. All right, I'm trying to ask a question, sorry. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Councillor Dove, you're concerned that speed isn't the cause of accidents. You'd be correct, but with your expertise, you should know, speed, lower speed gives drivers time to react and reduces the severity of accidents. Of course, a slower car, less accidents, less severity, preventing an accident. How can you not support 20 mile per hour limits when you know this is true? Now, a slow rollout of limits is proposed. How can we act slowly in an emergency? Is it money? Is it resources? Because it's too late to be slow. There isn't enough time. Will BCP raise the barriers of implementing 20 miles an hour and any radical environmental measures to the UK government and also to the public? Thank you so much. Thank you, Adam. If you'd like to turn the microphone off, thank you. Councillor HADM. Thank you, Chair. Adam, thank you for your question. With apathy and inaction, we will undoubtedly exceed the targets as set in the Paris Agreement of 1.5 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels and the economic and social collapse that you highlight will displace many people worldwide. We need to pursue a range of measures to reduce the pressure and to mitigate the impacts across all energy use, heating and cooling spaces, growing our food and how we travel. There are also impacts regarding biodiversity loss, fresh horse's scarcity and sea level rise. I cannot answer for the knowledge or views of an Opposition Councillor, but I agree that driver reaction times with lower speeds reduces the severity and likelihood of crashes. A huge body of evidence supports this. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accident States, in built-up resident areas, Rossburg believes that 20mph represents the best compromise between mobility and risk. They also highlight that 20mph are not just a road safety measure. It is important also to consider, as you highlighted, they increase the opportunities for walking and cycling. They provide improvements in quality of life indicators such as health improvements, community cohesion and better air quality, as well as the reductions in road crashes and casualties from lower vehicle speeds. We declared a climate and ecological emergency in 2019, and we do need to act with urgency across a wide range of measures. Setting 20 mile an hour limits should help in supporting safer journeys, including encouraging people to consider how they travel for some trips in the urban area. To ensure these measures are appropriate, we have committed to working with communities and consulting on implementing these measures, and we will take further funding opportunities as they arise. This needs to sit alongside individuals choosing to better insulate their homes, turning down the thermostat, considering a low-meat diet, reducing air travel, and living lighter on the planet in order to mitigate the climate changes that are increasingly manifest. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Adam. I now have a public statement from Diana Butler. Diana, are you there? Thank you. I am going to ask the Chief Executive to tell you the situation. Unfortunately, the speakers in the public gallery are not working. We have been able to get them to work for this meeting, so apologies for that, but there's nothing we could do in time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Gallery. Diana, would you like to speak? Thank you, Chair. With the loss of half our BCP day centres, libraries could fill a vital gap in day service provision. Groups with specific needs could use facilities on library closed days. With the rise in isolation, loneliness, anxiety, and depression, libraries provide a safe meeting place for inclusion, friendship, support, education, skills. Our libraries have experienced caring staff who provide for all ages, including work experience for young people and sessions for parents and babies. What's on library activities includes talks, crafts, games, events, and children's sessions. Libraries could generate income through room hire, as Hamworthy does. The day opportunity strategy and library strategy should be considered together. Resources could be shared. Libraries fill a social, educational and health void in our communities. Vastly reducing staff and hours will increase need and expense elsewhere. Redundancies will affect lives. Staff and residents must be heard. Thank you, Diana. We have another public statement now from Joanne Keeling. Are you there, Joanne? Would you like to come forward? Thank you so much. Good evening, everyone. The decision-making process regarding Wessex Fields is deeply troubling. Initially, the Asset Disposal Working Group advocated for an open sale, expressing concerns about securing best value for the vital improvement site for BCP. However, a sudden shift occurred during the overview and scrutiny meeting where counselors voted to sell to university hospital door foot. Many of these counselors were also members of the Asset Disposal Working Group, raising questions about the change in position. One cannot help but wonder what other influences swayed the counselors' decisions. It would seem logical for BCP to solicit bids considering both developmental plans and financial considerations to maximize benefits for the community, particularly alarming a report suggesting that the proposed purchaser may receive a substantial discount on the Red Book valuation courtesy of the council's unusual contribution to further infrastructure. Despite assertions of openness and transparency from this administration, incidents like these cast out on their sincerity. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. OK, we've got enough time. Right. We now have a public statement from Daniel Parking. Daniel, thank you. Oops, sorry. During a council meeting last year, Councillor Mike Cox stated that the council will be moving to a cashless system amongst the kiosks and car parts to save the council money. When questioned further by Councillor Joe Salmon, Councillor Cox requested that any wider equality's impact would already always be considered. Councillor Salmon asked for the hard data on this, and as far as I'm aware, has not been made available. Following my own freedom of information request and a complaint to the ICA, the officer who responded could find no information of any meeting regarding us. I raised an appeal for senior officer to review, again, there was no trace. Perhaps the Council or Mike Cox, Councillor Cox, I publish this data, and any minutes taken to confirm any risks that would be a concern and the rag waiting along with the potential cost savings, unless the consultation has already been made with Alex McInistery. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. limit has been very poor. Many businesses on the A35 and local residents had not received letters or knew of the proposed scheme. I understand that in the last five years there were 162 collisions on this stretch of the A35. Of these 25 were speed-related, three class to severe. The speed had not been recorded. How can this be used as evidence to support the 20 miles per hour case? In bath, a report one year after the introduction of the zones indicated that the rate of people killed or injured had gone up in seven of the 13 zones, possibly due to the reduced speed zones giving a false sense of security and well as they are now you turning on 20 miles per hour. Before committing substantial sums of taxpayers' money, I urged the Council to reassess its position on this scheme and have a thorough consultation across the entire conurbation. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you very much. Members and members of the public, we are getting near the end of the time we usually allot for our statements and public issues but it's not my discretion and I'm going to go on with this. So can we have the next speaker? Thank you. Who is Nick Greenwood? Is that right? Thank you. The United Nations flag flies over this town hall symbolising the direction of travel within. Through freedom of information requests, we discover the UN 2030 agenda has been followed by the BCP since 2019, producing the BCP Council corporate strategy. Please note the word corporate. The strategy is full of specious, untested, impractical, utopian ideas that have no regard for cost-benefit analysis, ideologically driven and goals dependent on renewable energy without any empirical data. The strategy claims a climate emergency, being a Trojan horse, aligning itself to an authoritarian, new world order, seemingly dissolved by too many BCP Councillors, 15 many cities, open prisons initially requiring us to see Council permission to lay by car after 100 times per year, blanket 20 mile an hour, polluting speed-ragid restrictions. Night zero is a term that's suited to our bank account once the politicians have spawned their way into this dystopian nightmare. Thank you, Mr. Green, Roger. Mr. Patrick King, come forward, thank you. 17th of March 24, sorry, yeah, Council Secretary of State for Transport, Council's received strength and guidance on 20 limits, reminding them to reserve for sensible and appropriate areas only, such as outside schools with safety and local support at the heart of the decision. Authorities expected to consider this guidance could have implications for future funding. Second of October 23, Secretary of State, we will remove annoyances that irritate drivers and get in their way making parking less problematic. This Council report shows preference for all areas implementation of 20 limits and concerns of insufficient parking availability. Why is Creekmore parking wide not functioning? Why propose closing Beach Road car park? These contravene, the latest guidance, rendering the report redundant, necessitating adjournment and procedural review. The 20th of April 24, Saturday, just gone. Welsh Minister poorly inconsistently implemented with many roads unreasonably changed to 20 limits, communities to own speed limit decisions, rather than imposed upon them. Thank you, thank you, Mr King. Thank you, we have a public statement from Shivorn Harrington, Chief Executive Officer, come forward, please, Miss Harrington. This is from the University Hospital store sit. Good evening. This is a win-win decision. The land has unique value to the NHS and partners. A health led campus leads to high-quality jobs like research and education. We need more homes, especially for the NHS key workers who will walk to work. UHD is an environmental custodian who can make this a net zero site. This proposal is popular, common sense use of the land. It's supported by neighbouring landowners. We're local with a long-term view. We have every interest in making this work. Expert opinion has set the price following the due process, so a fair deal for tax payers. We've developed a joint vision for the site over many years. BCP are no longer leading on developing the site, and UHD is best placed to progress this. UHD's track record includes a £24 million pathology hub, £13 million for electrical upgrade, net zero buildings. We are keen to further deliver with partners the vision for this site. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, I should have said that this is in regard to Wessex Fields. Thank you. A public statement from Mr Rob Weitman on a similar topic, I believe, Rob. Thank you. I always think I have such a loud voice, but clearly I do need it. We're keen to work in partnership for the benefit of all our residents, taking a one public estate approach. We're prepared a briefing for our stakeholders with regard to our intentions for Wessex Fields, and as a public body we have put this in the public domain, and I hope that all Councillors have had the opportunity to see this. We've been very keen to meet and discuss this with Councillors and with all partners. We're very pleased to have this first opportunity to address Councillors for Council this evening, and to explain why we're so keen on this development for the area we have made a video, which I hope again has been copied to all Councillors. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you very much, Mr Weitman. Diana Butler, a public statement regarding road safety. Would you like to come forward, Diana, and make your statement? Thank you. Local road safety is the shared responsibility of Council, police, contractors, and the public. We need more education and safety awareness of road and for road and pavement users, where and how to cross the road safely, vehicle stopping distances, driver blind spots, being visible to drivers, cyclists using cycle lanes or cycle paths were provided, and using a bell on shared pathways, drivers watching for hazards and adhering to speed restrictions. Mass 20 mile per hour roads will affect duration of journeys, 999 response times, reduced attention to the road ahead whilst checking your speedometer, and reduced fuel efficiency by using lower gears. The majority of drivers are law abiding. It is the reckless drivers who create the most danger and they have no respect for speed restrictions. Dorset police will not be able to supply additional resource to monitor and enforce proposed 20 mile per hour limits, but could surely catch reckless drivers and illegal scooting. Thank you, Diana. That is the end of the public session this evening. As we all know members, we usually set aside, because of our constitution, 15 minutes, and this evening, at my discretion, we've had 30 minutes, so I think I hope everybody feels that they've had their say. We move on now to recommendations from the Cabinet and the other committees. I'm just looking at the gallery. Are you all right up there? Are some of you leaving? I can see people standing. I will carry on anyway, as long as you can get out safely. Yes, recommendation 6-11. They're going to be taken separately and set out in your agendas. I need to highlight for you, there are decisions on some of these issues which have been taken under delegated powers by the relevant bodies, and though not before council. Thank you. So item 6, Cabinet 6 of March 2024, minute 120, Councillor Billy Earle, I understand you're going to move the recommendation with Councillor Hadley's seconding. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. So this paper is a review of the current 20-mile-per-hour schemes that we have across BCP, as well as a consideration of schemes nationally that create safer roads where fewer people are killed or seriously injured. Across our 77 existing 20-mile-per-hour schemes, we have seen a casualty reduction of 40%, and as a Council that takes road safety seriously, representing communities, many of which are concerned about road safety, we should extend this opportunity to other neighbourhoods. The paper allocates £149,000 of the local transport plan capital grant from government to recommence the implementation of 20-mile-per-hour schemes in residential neighbourhoods on an area-by-area basis, where the evidence shows casualty reduction will be the greatest, and where there is support from Councillors and communities. This is part of a mix of road safety measures this Council is taking. The local transport plan also includes allocations to new pedestrian crossings, money to tackle cluster sites where crashes take place too frequently, and £500,000 on providing safer routes to school. This paper does not describe a blanket approach, as there are many roads where it would not be appropriate based on need and capacity. Instead, this is to extend the benefits of 20-mile-per-hour to other residential areas. In my ward of New Town and Hevelins, we're almost exclusively 20-mile-per-hour, and it's created a much safer environment for all to enjoy. It's unfair to deny others in similarly urban residential areas of that confidence when sending their kids to school on foot or on bike or taking a stroll to the local park with their dog. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. If you carry, you'll have to clear the gallery. Thank you. Members, members, we are adjourned. [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] Thank you members. We are back on the live stream now. Thank you for your patience during that little situation. We do have still some people in the gallery. Can I request that we do not now have any more interruptions? As I say members, we are now on before we have to adjourn. Item six, Councillor Mille has actually proposed, and I believe Councillor Hadley was going to second before we have to adjourn. So Councillor Hadley, do you want to second? Thank you. Happy second. I don't have a right to speak. Thank you. Thank you members. Councillor Trenchy, wish to speak. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to point out that the report that we've got before us today was the report that went to Cabinet, but it wasn't the final recommendation of Cabinet, which was to add the recommendation from the overview and scrutiny board about robust public consultation, and I'm wondering whether that can be brought up to clarify the situation, because I think that was quite an important part of the decision which Cabinet agreed with. But on the topic as a whole, I do think that it's extremely unfortunate that as we come into the building, there was a protest going on, as if there was a proposal for a blanket 20-mile-an-hour ban, which was obviously complete, or a blanket 20-mile-an-hour limit, which was obviously nonsense, and people seem to be protesting against something that isn't there. I have to say that I fully support what was agreed in the end, and I support the consultation being at the level of the residents who are directly affected by it, and that—and I've had conversations and so on to this effect with people—I don't think if a group of residents I represent wanted their local roads to become a 20-mile-an-hour zone, I think it's their business and the business of those immediately on the periphery of the area, and not of people several miles away. So I've rounded it all into one, but the most important thing is that the decision is the one that was actually passed to Cabinet and not the one that was reported to Cabinet. Thank you, Councillor Trent, the Chief Executive is going to answer. The reason that that second part about consultation is not pulled before the Council is it was approved and resolved by the Cabinet to do that, so it's not a matter for Council's consideration. Cabinet have agreed that, under recommendation, it was resolved under B. So item A, the bit that is brought to Council, is just the decision that's in front of Council. It's in the context of Cabinet having agreed—having resolved that meaningful consultation would be taken into account, which is in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting. Any more speakers? Councillor FIT. Thank you very much, Chairman. I do agree with the last speaker about consultation, I have to say, but it just seems to me that the way we're going about this here, something's gone a bit wrong with the process. When a decision like this can actually go through Cabinet and come to full Council without any consultation with residents already being made, I just think this is a completely flawed process, and I'm sorry, but I just can't vote for it as it stands. Councillor Bartlett. Oh, so sorry, Councillor—oh, sorry, Philip, you're next. I couldn't agree more than with my colleague, Councillor Phipps, on this, and I'll keep this very, very short if I can read that file. Yes, I cannot agree with this paper at all. The main reason is the public weight of opinion is against it. I think it's plain to everybody that it is. We've seen the turn around in Wales against this now, and from the feedback that I'm getting in my ward, I've not had a single person often. It's the port. It's all been—we don't want it. So, on that basis, I can't support that alone. In addition to that, the paper is very weak. It uses percentages over a period, you know, and I have to say that 11% of zero, if you've got no instances in an area, 40% of zero, I'm afraid, 40% of zero, I'm sorry, you're checking your head over there, Councillor Chairman, but, you know, this is a fact. There are no hard statistics in this paper. It substantiates this policy. On top of that, interventions on safety are already available to us, where we need 20 miles an hour zone, so we've got them around schools. Who's going to argue against that? It's obvious, isn't it? We've got 20 miles an hour limits, and we've got 20 miles an hour zone, where they are needed. Every time I try to get an interventional safety basis within my ward, I'm always told that data does not support it. There is insufficient data to support an intervention, and now it appears we're going to have interventions without any data at all. Complete opposite. There's no logic to it whatsoever. So, just on the next point, I don't believe this Council has a mandate to do this. You know, the Three Towns Alliance were cobbled together. Nobody's voted. This isn't on anybody's electoral manifesto that I can recall. It suddenly came up because somebody wants to do it. It's a good idea for the Three Towns Alliance. Sorry, can't support that. So, my last point, I'd say, if it's not broken, why try to fix it? It's not broken. Why try to fix it? You can fix it in the bits that need it, and that already happens. Why waste the money? Listen to the residents. Is there money you're wasting? Stop it. Listen to them. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Steve. Could I put your mic out? Councillor Broughtt, are you planning to speak? I think we're just giving you a bit of advice, first. I want to take another Councillor first. Righty, who? Councillor Cooper. I'm very confused about this issue because I kind of do believe, you know, we should all ride bicycles and leave our cars at home and keep our children, young people and families safe. What really unnerves me about this, but first of all, we're saying I feel quite upset about what we've witnessed here today, some of the things that have been said. I have connections with people in Palestine that I've not heard of, and it just brings up stuff. It took me all my time not to walk out, actually, and join them. I just thought I would say that. It's the fragmentation of the marketplace and the kind of thinking of, it's just all over the place in terms of making our towns safer and greener and moving to a zero footprint. The coordination between different departments is almost like a game of crazy golf. Different departments seem to be working in isolation. I was in Wales when they brought in, I was working on an arts project for a week and a half in Wales when they brought in the 20 mile an hour speed limit. In the cities, it was wonderful. It really changed the relationship between pedestrian, cyclist and car. It was almost like a ballet when you're trying to cross the road. It was lovely people were enjoying it, but on the arteries, it was a nightmare. You go from 60 to 40 to 50 to 20 to 10 because people weren't communicating with each other. I think we need to do that before we begin to sweep out. Importantly, the thing about the residents is really important. Certainly in Hamburg, they feel they've not been spoken to about stuff. They all want their children to be safe. Residents that communicate with me want their families to be safe. They want clean air. But then they say to me, Well, why did the council take away the signs of pool lifting bridge saying,Stop hidling your cars? So there's all this kind of issues about enforcement. Who is going to enforce it? When I was driving here tonight, somebody in a BMW, in the 20 hours, it was probably going 60 or 70. We've got that. We've got the atomization of self under advanced capitalism where people don't really have time to think about anything. But themselves and how are they going to get to somewhere, whether it's to get the next job, whether it's to get the kids to school, whether it's to work a bit more over time to pay off the bills. So we need to really think clearly about this and people need to work together, the police, the communities. More importantly, the communities need to go with you on this or with us because if they don't, it's political suicide, whatever party you're on. It will have massive repercussions if we don't think clearly and collectively about how we roll this out. So, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Broughtt, are you ready to speak now? Thank you. I think I am, Madam Chairman. Thank you very much indeed. Colleagues, I'm actually really pleased that the accompanying report that comes with this paper doesn't talk about not doing anything about speed limits whatsoever. It does, however, present a choice. I don't think anybody should be arguing that appropriate and evidence-based application of 20 mile per hour speed limits isn't the right thing to do to improve safety in the area. But there is a choice in front of us, and it is a choice with limited funds that we have attached. And the choice is option B is presented in this paper, which is to do the neighbourhood approach that we've talked about here, rolling a default 24 per hour at speed limit along the area with exceptions. There is option C, which is to do a more targeted, sorry, to do a more interventionist approach. Or there is option A, and option A, as Councillor FIPS pointed out earlier on, is not do nothing. It is actually to follow an evidence-based approach, looking at areas around schools, or actually where the evidence said that we need to spend this money and appropriate the 20 mile per hour speed limits in that area. And that's why colleagues, I would like to propose an amendment which, in essence, reverts to option A and looks at a more evidence-based approach for the application of these speed limits across the area. And colleagues, the reason I want to do that is for three reasons. First of all, the deputy leader, when she spoke in her initial speech around this two years, a few months ago, talking about the default 20 mile per hour speed limit across BCP that was her intention, also said that things like arterial roads would of course not be included. And yet we've seen already in the first three neighbourhood areas, which are currently being consulted on, that the A-35, one key arterial road, is indeed included in those very proposals. And what's more, you know, Councillor FIPS talked about consultation. There is a consultation process undergoing on that, but only for people living within 50 metres, people being advised if they're living within 50 metres of those proposals. So I really don't think actually the intention that we've heard is what we're seeing, because arterial roads are also being included. The second point, as we've heard, is around police enforcement. Even with the proposals that we've got here, the police have said that they're not going to enforce it anymore. And the third point is around evidence-based decision-making. We heard the deputy leader earlier on talk about how things shouldn't be unfair. What is unfair, I think, is actually using the funds that we've got in a more blanket-based approach, because it is a blanket-based approach rather than a targeted-based approach on the evidence, which could have the very opposite effect. What we could do is remove the funding for those areas where the evidence is showing there is the most need around schools and around where we know the problem is, and instead focus it on areas which are more ideologically driven. Colleagues, I don't think anybody should deny that appropriate restrictions to per speed limits can really help to improve safety. And 20 mile per hour can play a part, but it should be in the right location with the right engagement and led by the evidence. So the proposal I would like to move would be, and I'm just sending this around, to delete the words on a neighbourhood basis with a focus on residential areas, and the advice of that would essentially revert to option A in the accompanying paper. So instead of moving towards an option B approach, I'd like to propose option A instead. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Broughtt. Do you have a seconder for your amendment? Yeah, could I second that and reserve my right to speak? Thank you. Members, you have an amendment to this before you, which I hope you've all either looked at or are looking at. Councillor Hadley, you wish to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Chair. Yes, Councillor Broughtt has just highlighted that this is about a small amount of money within the local transport plan, and it's continuing or resuming a program that was already in existence of implementing 20 mile an hour zones or limits where appropriate and through consultation. And as he's just highlighted, there is consultation currently going on as part of the Bournemouth Towns Fund in Boscombe, which includes a 20 mile an hour limit. So there is an evidence-based approach, and this is around looking at priority areas. Appendix A in the report shows the map of the existing zones, and if you look at the pool area, there are very large areas of pool, including my ward, Pool Town, where a 20 mile an hour is the norm, because it is a highly urban area, and it's about something that that community has accepted and worked with. In Bournemouth, that's not the case. It's nearly all just around the schools, apart from in WIC and in through to areas that are quite affluent, she's interesting that they have the 20 mile an hour zones. And in Christchurch, there's not a lot apart from in Burton, which is mostly 20 mile an hour zones. So there is a real patchwork around the area of existing 20 mile an hour limits or zones, and this is about a small amount of money allowing the teams to look at the evidence, to look at the priority zones and the places where we can consult with the local population in terms of whether they want this. This is not about imposing it on anyone, and I don't think that do nothing as in the option that is being proposed by the leader of the opposition allows us to do that because there will be no money within the local transport plan to implement 21 hour zones. Thank you. Any more Councillors wish to speak to this amendment? Councillor Sammon, are you speaking to? Sorry, are you? Sorry, I could just play with this. Yeah, hold on members. Councillor, as the proposal of the substantive motion, we're asking if you would accept the amendment, which changes it back to, I think, A, isn't it? No. Thank you. That's fair enough. Right, thank you Chief Exec and monitoring officer. Good try. Councillor Sammon, you are speaking to the amendment, remember, not the original. Which one? Which salmon? Well, it was you I was looking at, Joe. So I just want to say thank you to Pete for his comments because... Hang on. Councillor Sammon, wait a minute. Yes, Councillor. Councillor Thorkour. I do apologise. Please forgive me. Your mic's not on. Councillor interjecting. So you can watch Chair for recognising me there. Do please forgive me. I didn't hear the seconder for the amendment. Councillor, who? Councillor interjecting. Thank you. Oh, I just want to say... Yes, Councillor Sammon, carry on. I wanted to say thank you to Pete for just acknowledging the reality of the last 30 minutes. I can't get my head around how we're going to carry on as if that disruption didn't happen. Councillor Sammon, can you stick to the amendment? Oh, do my best. Please. Please try. If that foes expressions a grief and despair and frustration, I think they speak to our moral duty as public servants. And I thought it would be good for us to acknowledge them at the very least and maybe speak to them in this meeting. I feel really uncomfortable just carrying on as if none of that happened. Councillor Sammon, can we stick to the 20 mile an hour thing that we're discussing? I know it's around the corner. I mean, I would like to propose or whatever we do technically, that we'd spend a few minutes talking about what's just gone on in the public gallery and the issues they've raised. Sorry, Councillor Sammon, can you sit down because we're supposed to be discussing Councillor Broadhead's amendment to the substantive motion which was proposed by the deputy leader. I'm getting mixed up now myself. Who was the... Councillor? Who? I don't think it was. Councillor Aikenhead. Councillor Aikenhead, I'm told you you want to speak. Oh, so sorry. Thank you. I couldn't. Thank you. Yes. So, I do have reservations about the proposal and the Peter spoke to those very well, so I wasn't going to speak on that. However, I don't think this amendment addresses any of those concerns. And in fact, the thing I think is most wrong about this amendment is that it actually emphasizes that we're only going to look at evidence and not take any notice of what residents think. And so, and actually, I'm a little bit surprised that we're actually taking the amendment because I think it is actually a negative of the proposal, but I will defer to you on that. But if we are taking it, then I would urge people to vote against this amendment because it's... I believe that if people in a street want 20 mile an hour, they should be able to get it. But I don't believe that we should be imposing on people. So, I'm not really in favour of the original proposal, but I definitely don't like the amendment. Thank you, Councillor. I have now, Councillor Kate Sammon. Speaking to the amendment. Thank you, Chair. So, just, yeah. Sorry, I like Councillor Cooper and Councillor JOE Sammon. I'm finding it a little hard to concentrate on the matters in front of us, given what we heard from our residents who we should listen to earlier this evening. We've been told off for not listening to our residents already by others. So, the proposal, the amendment, proposes that we basically, we just stick with what we do now. And what we do now is we wait until someone's been killed or seriously injured before we implement road safety measures. And I don't like that, and I've never liked that, and I think we need to do better than that. It is madness to wait until someone's hurt or killed, when we know how to avoid that happening. The whole concept of health and safety, which is enshrined in law in this country, is based on risk assessment and risk minimisation to prevent accident and injury. But for some bizarre reason, not when it comes to road safety. Imagine a workplace in which every trip hazard, every trailing cable or curling carpet tiles left in place until someone had fallen over and broken their ankle in that particular spot. We would consider that to be madness. And the same applies here. When we can see that it would be safer for a road to have a lower speed limit because of its particular characteristics, i.e., it's a road where there are a lot of pedestrians, because it's lined with houses where people live. We shouldn't wait until someone's hurt or killed before we make that change. Thank you, Councillor Sammon. I think I heard Councillor ALLAN and the Leader both wishing to speak. Do you wish to speak now, Deputy Leader? Yes, please. I am speaking to the amendment, thank you. Okay. So, I absolutely agree. I'm not sure this amendment really does revert it back to A, but if, you know, as other colleagues have said, because of that, I think we can all agree. That Councillor Broadhead is actually endorsing the allocation of £149,000 of the local transport plan to be spent on 20 miles per hour. And I'd like to thank him for not opposing the whole thing altogether. I think that we can all agree that 20 miles per hour zones and limits will make our areas safer. And I look forward to him voting for the final recommendation. Thanks. Thank you. Leader, you wish to speak. Thank you, Chair. I just want to draw people's attention. So, I just wanted to make a comment related to what Councillor Sammon said. And that is that it is tragic what happened to one of our residents a couple of weeks ago. However, it would have been perfectly possible for the people who visited today to actually put a question into Council so that we would have been able to put it onto the agenda. And I would definitely recommend that anyone watching this, if they have something they wish to say to the Council, that's how you go about doing it. And we would have been able to put it onto our agenda and have a really meaningful discussion about it. But in relation to the amendment to which I am speaking, I just want to refer residents colleagues to Appendix B. If we remove the neighbourhood basis with a focus on residential roads, what we're effectively doing is creating a free for all where we end up with a road here and a road there and a road here and a road there. And many of us have more frequent requests for somebody's road to be speed reduced. Certainly, both Councillor Sammon and myself have been engaged in a conversation with a resident at the moment where we've all said it's one of our most common things to be asked for. And in fact, in my own road, I am constantly asked why is our road not a 20 mile an hour and I would very much love it to be. But doing one road at a time is expensive and it doesn't work because there is no point making one road 20 if the next road is a 30, the next road is a 30. The whole idea is doing it in the clusters that are shown on Appendix B in the Purple Zones allows people to get from their home to their local shop, from the park to the school, from one place to another within a small residential zone. And with the full backing of the people who are within that zone, so for me it's a far more useful way of spending the very limited funds that we're allocating. It allows us to actually communicate properly with the residents who are most affected. It doesn't stop people who live outside the zone from making comment or passing their own view on it, but it does allow people to be heard in a confined area where it affects them, rather than a scatter gun approach which doesn't have any meaning and doesn't have the effect that we want. We're always hearing about cycle lanes that don't go anywhere because they don't work until they take you from A to B. The purpose of the neighbourhood zoning is to do exactly that. And I think as long as there's proper consultation, this is the way forward and therefore I wouldn't support Councillor for Ted's amendment. Thank you. Councillor Bartlett. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just this A says do nothing. It's a bit of a misnomer because do nothing isn't do nothing because if you read the paragraph, it actually says what will be done. And part of that is not waiting for people to be injured. It's using evidence and evidence can be anything. Evidence can be a letter from a resident, a request from a resident. It can be an analysis. All of those things can lead to an intervention and that is the current process. It happens all the time. We know we have new Zebra Crossons going in because residents apply for them because they've got a concern about a particular area. And it happens. And there are some waiting to go in, I think, in the local area and more then. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bartlett. Any more speakers on the amendment? I'm so sorry, George, I knew you were there. Thank you. Councillor Farquhar, you wish to speak. Thank you, greatly, Chair. Quite an interesting debate. I'm always quite keen to hear sort of views from across the Chamber. I myself am broadly supportive as most people in this Chamber are all thinking sure that 20 mile an hour speed limit is in appropriate places such as outside schools. I do take the leader's point that, for the expense of it, that piecemeal by this road, this road, rather than a neighbourhood. I'm not proposing an amendment but perhaps just a suggestion for how the money could be best spent because it's not a great deal of money for an implementation. I don't see us spending 149,000 and overnight 20 mile an hour soon picking up neighbourhood by neighbourhood but that phrase that with the support of the neighbours. So I would suggest that perhaps rather than the consultation, a quick study is done to what is the cost of a referendum. In the same way that we have a, for a local neighbourhood plan, we produce the documentation which could be replicated then for the next neighbourhood and we go to referendum. Every resident in that neighbourhood gets the opportunity, rather than they may not be digitally able on the consultation, they may not be aware of it as some shopkeepers apparently haven't been informed. And that way we would be totally transparent because it's a referendum and that neighbourhood, as with a neighbourhood plan, gets the opportunity to say, yes we want it, no we don't based upon the perk evidence which is presented as part of setting up for the referendum. So it's just a suggestion that we consider that rather than the consultation to actually go that step further to make sure that we bring the public with us. And the public will certainly vote to say, no we don't want it and that will settle once and for all the discussions which we have before I'm approved 20 mile an hour or I'm going to get 20 mile an hour. Thank you, Councillor Fauquard. I haven't heard much talk of referendum since Christchurch had one some time ago. Councillor HANA, I believe you're next. Thank you, Chair. There has been a lot of talk about consultation and most of those mentioned in consultation seem to feel that it is a good thing. And that is with the one exception that in proposing do nothing, that proposal is actually taking consultation out of the system. The accusation has been made that we've tried to introduce a policy without consultation that we're trying to impose a blanket 20 mile an hour zone without consultation. My reading of page 59 is that there are clear areas through routes which are not designated for consideration as 20 mile an hour zones. That we are looking at area by area proposals and that we are looking at residential areas and the residents of those residential areas have got the right to be consulted. So, it does seem to me that option B is the right way forward and that we should reject the idea that we, in effect, carry on as before without consulting residents. I cannot support the amendment. Thank you. Councillor Fauquard. Do you want to speak? Yes, to the amendment. Thank you very much. First of all, I had one of the cabinet members said and they just seem to in a way for me trivialise that, oh, this is just a small amount of money now, but it does have ongoing consequences. This paper is clearly a commitment to the areas on the map. That's why the map is there and that's what it says. I think the leaders just mentioned that anyway, has spoken on that. I'd like to mention this do nothing, which is one of the options. It's not do nothing at all. It's actually very misleading to say that that option is do nothing. And quite frankly, I think the paper is somewhat biased, by the way, by some of the things that are in it, but that's just my opinion. Councillor B I have to explain about that on the do nothing. The other thing it says in there that we're not going to do the true roots, as has also been mentioned. However, in other schemes, through roots are coming forward. We've just got one in Boscombe. The 835 is now proposed for a 20 mile an hour. So this is one thing, but there's other stuff coming forward that we don't even know about as well, which is not even mentioned in here. I think if we went with the amendment, it would certainly give us the chance, or give this Council the chance, to actually get some proper evidence. Let's get some facts and figures together, get some data, and actually consult on an area basis. Let's do it. Let's actually find out what our residents want. Because I think that's what we should be doing. In my opinion, this Council does not have a mandate to do this in such an extensive manner, 20 miles per hour, across BCP. Thank you. Thank you, Councillors. Councillor ADAMS, did you wish to speak? I know you seconded. Yeah, God, I'll keep it brief. I can stand up. I can't actually say it much better than Councillor Fips and Councillor Bartner, who completely agree with everything they said. It isn't just a couple of hundred thousand. It's potentially millions over the next 10 years, and people I speak to are pretty universally happy with 20 mile an hour zones outside of schools. But even if you say,Do you like 20 mile an hour zones?and they're like,No, bugger off.And I say,What about schools?And they say,Yeah, I can understand that. So let's do that, and I agree with Councillor Farkwell. Let's have a referendum and ask people what they want. I think it's a great idea. I'm going to sharpen up. Thank you, Councillor. Any more Councillors wishing to speak to the amendment? Councillor BRIANDA. Before I ask, Councillor BRIANDA, to wind up. Thank you. Councillor BRIANDA, all yours. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you colleagues for the quality of the debate. As I kicked off at the beginning, this isn't about actually do nothing versus do something. This is about the choices that we have in front of us as to how we can really affect change and make sure that we are doing our public duty and looking at the actual things that are going to affect the safety of our residents in across BCP. But do it following the evidence. And we've heard from some of the colleagues, I heard Councillor Aikenhead's point about there is a danger that this could be ignoring residents instead, but I just don't think that's true. Saying that policy, what I'm actually saying is that policy should actually be shaped by evidence, and then you consult on that. And as we heard from Councillor Bartlett, actually, that is the way that we do things at the moment. We have many, many ways that residents can input into areas where they feel it's very important. It's not about not listening to residents, but it is about embedding evidence-based decision-making in policy shaping. Councillor Sammon was worried that this is just waiting for accidents to occur and then reacting. I don't think that's the case. I do think it is about understanding our place, and then actually spending the money where it's needed. And Councillor Adams made the valid point. This scheme could run and will run, because we are agreeing the forward policy in this document tonight into millions and millions and millions of pounds. Do people in this room have the understanding and the confidence that what we are agreeing tonight is actually spending that money where it's needed? Or, as I said at the beginning, is there a danger that we're actually flitting at all of this money onto nice areas where my people make people feel a little bit better about their streets, where there's no evidence of safety concerns whatsoever and taking that much needed money away from where it is really needed. I'm glad, Councillor, that we do agree that money should be spent on reducing speed limits for safety. I think the difference between us is that we don't think it should be done arbitrarily. We do think it should be, once again, following the evidence. As Councillor Barlow has pointed out, what I have recommended in this and I have checked with the Council's team is to move back towards option A, which is not to do nothing. There's a pre-scene there about what option A actually it is. It's focusing the spending around schools. It's focusing around where the evidence is showing that there could be harm and that we need to mitigate it. I agree with Councillor ADAMS. Councillor Farkworth's point about a referendum is actually not a bad one, actually. I'm the same. I talk to people all the time about this. And like Councillor Bartlett said earlier on, I've yet to have one person say to me that they think what the Deputy Leader said, a default position of 20 mile per hour across the area is the right course of action. So let's maybe really ask what the people think. And as Councillor Fipps said, I do not feel that there is a mandate to do this. There was a discussion a couple of months ago. Councillor OWL said that all of the parties in the Three Towns Alliance campaigned for this and that's why they had the mandate. I, again, don't remember that as well. We need to follow the evidence. We need to look at sensible reductions in speed limits, but we need to do it in a calm, considered way. Following where the evidence is. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Broughtt. Now, I doubt very much if we're going to get consensus on voting for the amendment. So I'm going to ask initially for a show of hands. First of all, all in favour of the amendment? All against? [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you, members. The amendment has fallen. I have my vote recorded, please. Well, members, do remember that we can ask for our votes to be recorded initially, but that's fine. Thank you. We're going to move on now to this. Just check if there's any abstentions. Well, okay, any abstentions? I'm so sorry when you said it was fallen. Four abstentions? Was that four abstentions? Thank you, members. Now, we now go back to the substantive motion, which is on your papers. Councillor Canavan, you're speaking now to the substantive. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to bring us back, if I may, to the points that Councillor Fitz made initially. I did get worried about this debate because they do appear to be people who keep on repeating that this is some kind of blanket approach when it's not. It's a piecemeal approach. We're clear about that. People repeating that it's some kind of antique car campaign, which it's not. And people also apparently saying that my group sported, which we don't. I think there is a clear road safety case for 20 miles an hour limit, but the point that Councillor Fitz made initially is key. This process is really flawed. To approach it in this way, it's just clumsy in my view, and that's the reason why I think I'm just going to be forced to abstain. We all want to reduce casualties on our roads. We all want roads to be safer, but this is not in our view that's not the way to go about it. It is, as Councillor Hadley said a moment ago, a relatively small amount of money. So what it's ruling out, therefore, is any kind of physical structures that reduce speeds of traffic like speed bumps and things of that kind. So it's ruling out that. And we've heard already in the debate that there's no way of being able to enforce that. So what you're relying on in my view is the goodwill of the people who have born with Christchurch and Paul. And if you don't involve them, if you don't consult them properly, you're not going to get that goodwill. I think it's unfortunate. I understand the explanation from the Chief Executive about why that kind of additional point that came through overview and scrutiny wasn't picked up. But Councillor Trent started at the beginning on that. Now, I understand that, but I think it's unfortunate because I think it takes a focus away from what we should be really discussing. How do we ensure that residents do get a full and proper say in this process? And I'm just not convinced that this paper that is before us allows us to be able to do that. So I think we need to just reflect and take a longer view about how we get to what it is we're trying to achieve. And I'm really concerned about how you're going to set the priorities that have been mentioned. So if you start with the consultation that's coming out, that affects my ward in Boscombe, but what's next? And how do you determine what's next? Where's the consultation going to come? We've heard in the initial representation from the public about the concern about the degree to which we are consulting people in any case. So we need to get it right. I don't think this paper helps us do that, Chair. So thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Tallying, will you next? Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got the luxury. I live in a 20-mile limit. My neighbour doesn't. By virtue of the school, the sign is literally just outside my front door. So I've had a look at the mat. I actually drove here. I have to apologise. I do have a bike, but I chose to drove here tonight. And I had a look at it. I think I am looking at an additional 50 metres of 20-mile-hour zone to get here, which I think I can't actually get up to 30 miles an hour in my street from my house down to the bottom of the road where I would enter into 30-mile zone. I wish to respond to Councillor Bartlett, who I think made the first comment about not having a mandate, and others who repeated this. Well, I've got to say myself and Councillor Cox definitely do have a mandate. It was on our election literature. And in fact, the echo on the 15th of February actually published that it was—we'd put forward a motion to the town council to implement 20's plenty. Obviously, a few months after the 15th of February, my personal vote from when I lost in the first election by one vote, I actually went on in the recent election to double my vote. So I'll take that. Thank you very much. Maybe not one policy increased our vote or doubled our vote, but yes, I do have a mandate for this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Tarling. Councillor Chutman-Law. Hi, I'm doing this off the top of my head, so who knows where this is going to go. If I hear default one more time, I think I might explode. Yeah, that's the last time. There's been a lot of talk about consultation, and that's exactly what this is doing. You know, we are concentrating with the public. It is going to be concentrated on, so what's the issue? It is what it is. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor DEPUTY PEDERVIN. Thank you. I couldn't understand when I first heard about the so many people getting so hot under the collar about 20 mile limits, I couldn't understand what it was all about. I mean, because I live in a ward that has had 20 mile limits for years, I mean literally so many years, it's just the way of life. It's accepted everybody lives that way, and it was only when I looked at the map in the agenda that I realised that we, in pool, I didn't realise it at the time, but pool council was obviously quite forward thinking and responded to local people who wanted 20 mile limits. And it pays towards sometimes because I dug out some old leaflets. Now, these are from nine or ten years ago. We have it there, 20 and 20. There had been a pilot for 20 mile an hour limit in part of the new town ward. Of course, we were separate wards then, I was Branson West, so was my colleague, Phillip Eads, and we were campaigning on behalf of residents because that's what they told us they wanted to get 20 mile a limit put in, and we were being put into the next phase after the pilot in new town. And a couple of editions later, area committee, remember those, in January, so that must have been January 2015, I think, gave the final go ahead for 20 mile limits on all the residential roads in Branson West. So, for all that time, the whole of Branson West and now new town as well, in the new town and Heatherlands ward, is 20 miles an hour. There has been nobody, nobody has ever contacted me to say they don't like it. Quite the reverse, there were one or two roads in new town that for some reason got left out originally, quite recently, and they were campaigning because they felt left out, every other road around about them was 20, they wanted to be included, and we got it done. So, it's the residential road, it's, I will have to name names because I don't go by road numbers very much, all the road, Herbert Avenue, Ringwood Road, Ashley Road, they are 30. It's the residential roads enclosed by that rectangle of roads that are 20 miles an hour, and I voted against the amendment because, as the leader has quite rightly said, to have 20 miles for perhaps 100 yards near a school, and then back to 30. It's so confusing, you'll get people jamming on their brakes because they realize they should be cutting down to 20. But it would also be more expensive because you'd have to have so much more signage than if you haven't covered a wider area. So, I find nothing to criticise in 20 mile an hour limit. My residents wanted it and they've got it. Excuse me, Councillor Burton. Thank you, Chair. I'm speaking because I'm feeling a little bit left out here because my ward is mostly former pool council area, I'd say mostly sort of 80% of it is, and my ward I don't think has got any 20 mile an hour roads in it at all. Now, so, you know, my ward has also got quite a few schools in it. No secondary schools, first schools, primary schools, pre-schools. And I also don't think that any of those have got 20 mile an hour split between limits outside them. The school I know the best, one road, okay, thank you, I stand corrected. One school I know very well because I volunteer and I will have, I do volunteer, if I don't get paid for doing this, there's a lollipop duty outside one school on Friday. It's a 30 mile an hour road. It can get a bit hairy at times on that 30 mile an hour road because unfortunately, like a lot of areas, there's a lot of term I don't like, rat running is happening now, particularly when this road works and things. So, a lot of people who don't know the area cut through and standing there with your lollipop in your hand, hoping that a car that is doing a little bit more than 30 because everybody knows when it's a 30 mile an hour road, you can do a little bit faster than that. It can get a little bit hairy. When I talk to residents, yes, there's quite a lot of people saying, I don't want 20 all over the place, until you say, what about your road? And they say, yeah, I'd really like my road to be 20. I know I'd like my road to be 20, although I know that won't happen because I live on a major road and it's 30 and that's not going to happen. I also see, of course, you know, talk about consultation, I see the children a lot when they're crossing the road. A lot of parents actually come to me and cross the road with the children. Some parents believe it or not, cross the road a bit higher up and don't use the crossing. And they make that decision, but of course, they make the decision for their children as well. So, I see quite a lot of children being dragged along across the road in a 30 mile an hour or so between cars. Therefore, I'm very in favour of this. When residents want it in an area, I think 20 mile is a really good idea. Thank you very much, Chair. Councillor Clements, I believe you've indicated. Thank you very much, Chair. Speaking with reference to new town ward, I was one of the Councillors representing that ward at the time we were campaigning for the 20 mile an hour limits. We were very active and vociferous. It was completely appropriate in that area. There are quite a number of primary schools. It's quite a built up area. The streets are narrow, potentially quite dangerous if people are driving at more than 20 miles an hour. And in that area in particular, I believe it was a very good decision to campaign for 20 miles an hour as a kind of a blanket scheme across the ward. But that's the point, really. I think it needs to be appropriate and appropriate to the area and the layout of the roads. I don't think a blanket scheme across the whole of BCP is necessarily the answer for a 20 mile an hour limit. Councillor Slade, did you indicate? Yes, I did. Because Councillor Lippred have been decided to dig in her annals of time, I did a little bit of a Google. If you do a bit of a Google for Broadstone 20 years, you'll see a very unattractive photograph of me from 2013. And I look rather different to what I do now. With my 20 years' plenty banner, the petition that we put out. Now, there are only a small number of petition signatures on the change.org. It was quite early days for that. It was all done on paper. Most of the people in the paper, two out of the four people in the photograph are no longer with us. The other ones were called the former Councillor Mike Brooke. But we actually did a huge campaign around 20 years' plenty. And it has always been something that many people in Broadstone wanted. Yes, another people in Broadstone didn't want it. But it took us 10 years to get it. And it does include a through road. It includes the main high street. And actually, what you tend to find when you put a high street into 20 miles an hour is people say, Well, you can't do more than 20 miles an hour anyway because the buses are because the cars and because the traffic lights." So, the reasons people give you for saying don't do 20 miles an hour is usually it won't be enforced and you can't go above 20 anyway. So, it is horses for courses. As long as the consultation is done well and as long as there is the will of the people, I really don't see why we're getting hot under the collar. We've always been very clear, this is a road safety issue, say we've been campaigning on it for more than a decade. And there is evidence out there on social media and through letterboxes saying that people want this in their own street, give them the opportunity to slowly have the cars down outside their road, outside their home, they will do it. When we did the scheme in Broadstone which took us years, years and years, it was done with a really good consultation. And consultation is absolutely key. I'm looking at the data and you can see it on the council website. You know, the Facebook post was seen by 50, 27.5,000 people. There was over 600 people responded. The people who live within the zone that was created had a 62% of people wanted it to happen. We waited, the responses of people who were affected by it and the people who were using it to go through. And it's actually been really successful. Yes, there is some challenge about one of the roads that goes through the middle and how difficult it is to drive at 20 sometimes of the day. But on the residential roads and through the main high street, it really isn't a problem. So let's do the consultation properly. Let's move this forward. We're not signing up for millions of pounds because this is part of the budgeting process. So we're allocating 149,000. Next year there will be a budget that comes forward and we'll allocate within the budget next year. And we discuss the budget together every year. So if people want to allocate more or less next year, you can do through the budget process. We're only allocating 149,000 at this point in time. Thank you, Leader. Councillor Canavan? No, I'm so sorry. Councillor Chalena. I was looking in the wrong direction. Thank you, Madam Chair. Obviously, like every other member in the Chamber, I'm in favour of speed reduction in total locations around schools and other built-up areas. However, this broad brush proposal is likely to further perception of this Council's anti-motorist policies. Oh, yes. Because let's face it, it follows the hiking or parking charges which will negatively impact businesses, residents and visitors. It's in addition to selling much-needed car parks, including beach road in my ward, despite there being plenty of evidence that there was significant demand for spaces. It's also in addition to closings and one of the entrances to vehicles in Paul Park without consultation and it's still closed. And that's obviously how this Administration seems to consult after the event and then ignore the feedback. I do wonder what the outcome will be when residents do not agree to what this Administration wants to impose, especially when they know the true cost involved and also when frontline services are going to be cut. 149,000 here, 149,000 there. Let's see what we could save instead, shall we? However, I suspect that any such consultation as it is will be limited and worded in a way to ensure that those who know best get the answers that they want. What is before us is not evidence-driven policy. It is not what residents want or are asking for and I will not be supporting this proposal. Thank you. Right, I think we've debated this very adequately. I'm going to go to Councilor Simon and then that's the end. Thank you. So I'm really disappointed in the quality. Councilor Halle, you're standing. Can we both speak? Because I'm really disappointed in the level of debate today. I've got a correct few things first of all. Stephen's right, one of the first things me and Kate did, more Kate than me was applied for a crossing. That was before we were elected back in 2022. That crossing is still not there yet. The business's usual approach to sorting out problems on our roads simply doesn't work. We have a situation where you're told no one has died yet on this stretcher road so you cannot have your 20 mile an hour limit. That makes me living. The nonsense we hear from people about that. The fact that some Councillors still need to make up false stories about seeing people hit by children, hit by buttsies at 30 miles an hour in surviving. I've only ever seen one impact of somebody hit at 30 miles an hour. They did not survive. Councillor Salmon, can you... Sorry, I am speaking. I am speaking. I am speaking. I will not be spoken. Councillor Salmon, sit. Bob, he couldn't hear you. Right, Councillor Dove, can you start again? Thank you. Okay, that's on now. Sorry, I will not be called a liar in this chamber. I've been called a liar on three occasions on Twitter by this Councillor. And again, in this chamber. I have lived experience. We have autorous logs with the police. We have pocket notebook entries of incidents I have gone to. And I would want either his record to be redacted and an apology or to this be to doubt with by the monitoring officer, please. Councillor Dove, I'm told that you weren't actually named at all. So I'm going to... I think it's quite clear who he means given that we've had the present coverage. I'm not born yesterday and I will not be called a liar in this chamber by somebody who thinks it's appropriate to stop making up incidents. Councillor Dove, I can't see how you were called a liar if you weren't named. I'm going to pass it to the monitoring officer for her advice. Councillor Sammon, will you sit down while we're debating this? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. In order to be a point of order, a Councillor has to refer to the relevant Council procedure rule that a breach has taken place. I'm not convinced that Councillor Dove has put an appropriate procedure rule forward which has been breached in this instance. I'm not aware that Councillor Dove was named and won't accept the request for a point of order, Chair. Sorry, could you just point out in the Constitution where it says that a Councillor can rebut something when another Councillor has lied against them, please. I can't find that in the Constitution. Chair, if I may, I'm not aware that Councillor Dove was named in the debate by Councillor J. Sammon. Councillor Dove has chosen to make this statement of her own accord. I'm not convinced that Councillor Dove's statement falls within the Council procedure rules. This is something that Councillor Dove has volunteered and because the Chair of Council is not being pointed to a breach of a procedure rule, it is on that basis that I'm not accepting this as a point of order, Chair. I'm going to move on now. Councillor Sammon, you have had to say all through this debate. I'm going to move to Councillor Howell who had his name down first and then that's the end of the debate. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Can we start the clock again because I'm not a clear weapon? Councillors interjecting. So, Kat, are we just this conversation so continue on? Do you want me to say ready to set go? Well, you seem to have a conversation with somebody else, Chair. Okay. Right. So, perhaps it still seems to be going on. Are we on zero? Go. Yes, go. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'd just like to make some responses in relation to some points made by the Councillors. In response to Councillor Bartlett, my party did say that we have generally supported 20-mile-an-hour interventions where they were beneficial, but clearly when you have a large area being considered, appropriate consultation needs to happen and I'm sure it will do in this case. My experience in my ward is where we have a lot of these zones is that they are welcomed, you know, hard get any complaints about them at all and do get requests for additional ones. In regards to Councillor Aitken, Aitken has about it being imposed. Actually, everybody in the—maybe everybody in this room, I'm not sure in terms of old Councillors, but certainly the 30-mile-an-hour limit was imposed on me when I was 17 and was able to drive, because it already existed. So, you know, when are we going to be consulted about that? I don't get by that argument. In terms of Councillor Cooper's speeding, how you control it, we all know people's speeds when it's 30 miles an hour, you know, most places aren't regulated. If it's 20 miles an hour, you will get self-regulation, because if you're a behind-a-tar, but it's going 20 miles an hour, then you have to get 20 miles an hour. And so it has a positive effect in that way. I would say in terms of actually the decision-making locally, we've got to be careful that we don't resort to just creating a hot pot of areas with mixed characteristics in terms of zones, because we need, as the leader says, to be able to give consistent, safe, cycle ways to children so they can get school, for example. And crucially, we need to change the culture. And culture isn't changed if you only have a very short stretch of a 20-mile-an-hour area. You need to have wider areas so that people get used to it. And I'd just like to conclude by saying, you know, it's a really positive thing about slowing down cars, slowing down society in general, because it gives us time to think. We're all being made to be so busy, we have no time to think. The government doesn't want us to think about a lot of things. For example, it does not want to think about the fact that we are supplying weapons to Israel, to commit, to allow them to perceive their genocide. Thank you. Now, I'm going to do a terrific U-turn, because I can see Councillor Farr looking very bereft. You did indicate, and can we be brief, courteous, kind and all those things. I'm sure you will be Councillor Farr. You always are. Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity. With the proposed rollout of the 20-mile-an-hour speed limit across all the Christ Church and Paul area, please can it be explained what resources will be used to enforce the speed restrictions, what is the true cost for residents going forward? Thank you. Councillor Hadley, I think you reserved your right. Do you wish to speak on this? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just briefly, because there was a question from the last speaker, the police haven't said they won't commit to undertaking, checking the speed in 20 minutes. They've said they haven't got resources to prioritise that against other things, and they are experimenting and looking at doing so, because Dorsey Council, Cornwall Council, and other councils are also implementing 20-mile-an-hour limits, and it matters. It does matter that people will speed in whatever speed limit you happen to set, and when we're looking up to the safety around schools and places where people live, that's really important. So it's not a no from Dorsey Bliss. They are the appropriate people. They are the only people that can implement moving speed restrictions, so that's really key. I think this is one element of the local transport plan. It's an important area in terms of that thing about not just dealing with deaths and serious injuries, it is about trying to make better places for people. Why wouldn't we want to make BCP a better place for people to live safely? Thank you. Councillor Earl, it's your time to sum up if you would. Thank you. I'd try and be quite quick. I think just to sum up really, this is a line in the local transport plan, which is a whole list, you know, a lot of money, millions of pounds, which goes into various capital programs across our road network and to do with our roads and travel and everything else. It is 20 mile per hour is a very small amount of that wider program of things like, you know, additional crossings, things like safer routes to school. It's part of a mix, and I think that's what we need to acknowledge. This is not a standalone thing. It's part of the road safety agenda, and I don't think Councillors disagree that we need to be. We need to try and have safer roads in our area. That is our duty as elected members. Councillor Lappetervain talked about our area. I don't live far from Marion, where we do have a large 20 mile per hour zone, and when I say large, it's a mile and a half basically square. It's a really big area. I'd invite any Councillors if they want to come and see it, come and have a look around. We don't have people out campaigning on the streets against it. We don't have really long car journeys. People respect the fact that residential areas should be for all sorts of people, not just cars, should be for cyclists, for walkers, for everyone else. It really is a delight to live somewhere like that, and I consider myself lucky, and I don't see why we should stop residents in areas that are very similar to that across our connovation from accessing that sort of safety. I just wanted to confirm that, yes, the resolution is that we would take into account scrutiny's recommendations, so that includes residents' views being taken into account for decisions on implementation are made, and that we would focus on areas around schools and nurseries, and that will now be included as part of the work. [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water] [sound of water]