Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Good morning everybody and welcome to the main meeting of Cabinet. My name is Councillor Millie L and I'm the Deputy Leader of the Council and Vice Chair of Cabinet. I'll be chairing this meeting today as Councillors laid his way representing us at a national conference. Next to me is Councillor Richard Burton. He will be assisting me with chairing today's meeting. I'd like to welcome all the members of the public who are in the room with us today and who have given up their time and of course the other Councillors who are in the room and online. First of all, I'm going to hand over to Democratic Services Officer to go through the housekeeping for today's meeting. Thank you. So please note that this meeting is being recorded by the Council for live broadcast and will be published on the Council website for a minimum of six months. The meeting may also be recorded or streamed for live or subsequent broadcast by members of the public, although ultimate discretion in this matter lies with the chair in case of disruption. For those in the room, please note that if the fire alarm sounds, please exit the building by where the nearest available signed fire exit route and make your way to the assembly point at the wall memorial in the gardens opposite the front of the building in Bournavonie. Finally, please ensure background noise is kept to a minimum. And mobile phones and other devices are turned off or switched to silent for the duration of the meeting. For those in the room, this includes turning off microphones and turning the volume down completely on your laptops. Thank you. Thanks, Sarah. I'd just like to add that as we have members of the public in the room today, that this meeting is held in public and is not a public meeting. So I'd like to request that members of the public remain silent throughout the meeting, apart from when invited to speak and give their submitted questions and statements. I'd also like to give the assurance to the members of the public that I intend to switch up the order of the meeting and bring item 10 or pull part forward on the agenda and deal with it first so that you don't have to hang around for other items, although you are more than welcome to stay for the entirety of the meeting, if you wish. So we moved to agenda item one, which is apologies. We have apologies from Councillor Vicki Slade with the Council, who I previously mentioned is away at conference this weekend. We also have apologies from Councillor David Brown, who is away having been invited to Buckingham Palace. Other than that, we're all present, although we have quite a lot to get through and with engagements and events this afternoon, I'm hoping we can keep to time and get through everything before members have to leave for their next meetings. So item two on the agenda is declarations of interest. I haven't had any raised with me, but is there anything that we should be aware of? No, if any members of Cabinet do become aware of anywhere, any throughout, just let me know. So agenda item three is the confirmation of the minutes of the last meeting of Cabinet. Can I get a proposal and a seconder for last month's minutes? I'm quite happy to chair. Thank you. Thank you. So Councillor Richard Burton to propose. Thank you. So agenda item four is public issues. We have had no petitions submitted from members of public on this occasion. However, we have received one question on agenda item 13, which is the same progress update, the send improvement plan and safety valve, and one question and 48 statements in relation to agenda item 10, which is the improvement of the environment in Paul Park through a trial closure of the park entrance to motor traffic. We have a 15 minute limit for this item of the agenda, but considering the number of statements for agenda item 10, I'd like to double that to 30 minutes to hear as many as possible as we can in that time frame. We will start though with questions from the public because they merit an answer from the responsible portfolio holder, whereas statements don't get an answer. However, we will likely refer to the points raised as part of the discussion and debate later on. I should also know that we have a lot of statements received where the member of the public has requested that they are read out by Sarah, democratic services officer. So Sarah will make her way through as many as she can in that time. So they'll probably be read quite quickly. So public questions. The first one that we have is from S Baker. Is S Baker here today? No, in that case, can I ask it's read out by Sarah from democratic services. Thank you. So the question, there are two parts to this question. Part one, is there a legality issue over BCP's approach to closing vehicular access before any consultation even took place? Paul Park was gifted to the people for the people and when eventually the results of the consultation became available, I understand that 63% of the very high number of participants desire the vehicular entrance to remain open. Two, what authority does BCP have to ignore the result of their own consultation and pursuing this underemocratic approach? The people have spoken. Furthermore, I might add that as a daily user of the park, as a pedestrian and cyclist, I have never seen a single survey being conducted on the number of cars using the car parks or the number of cars traveling through, effectively using the park as a cut through. This should have been carried out before any consultation. Thank you. Sarah, Councillor Hadley, I believe you have a response. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the question. On the legality issue, the eventual offense in March 1886 of the land, which would become Paul Park, was to the corporation of Paul. This was, for the land to be laid out and used as a public park and pleasure gardens for the benefit of the borough pool and the inhabitants thereof. The management of the park from its inception has therefore been a matter for the authority to decide. Repeated surveys have highlighted that the significant flows of traffic on the carateways through the park detract from the environment for leisure, the principal purpose of the park. There are five car parking areas with dedicated parking for those with disability and the ability to still use two vehicular entrances to drive into the park at East Gate and sell down entrance. In determining the best way to manage the park for the future, cabinet needs to consider the results of the consultation alongside the other factors as outlined in the paper. It was made clear from the beginning of the process that the consultation was not a referendum. Representative democracy does not work that way. Indeed, the previous decision to reopen keyhole bridge was made against the weight of representations. On travel surveys, over the recent years, a number of surveys have been conducted in the park, including those referenced in appendix 11 to the report, which were at the sell down entrance. An all day survey of vehicles on the 17th of May, 2016, from 7am to 7pm. On both Wednesday the 6th of September, 2023 before the closure, and Wednesday the 7th of February, 2024 during the trial, there were counts of vehicles, pedestrians and cycle movements over the same 12 hour period, 7am to 7pm. The latter two surveys were conducted by video recording that was then reviewed and classified. The results also show a significant reduction in motor traffic eastbound, especially between 4.30 and 6pm. Thank you, Councillor Hadley. Now we move on to the next question, which is in relation to agenda item 13, which is on the same progress update. It is from Adam Saviano's. However, he is not here today and has nominated Mr. Alex Mizkina Street to ask it on his path. Alex, go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. I actually had two questions from Mr. Saviano's checker. We've just checked. We've got two answers. I can confirm that it is two questions given, but I think they are all going to be rolled into one answer. Oh, I see. I just read the whole thing then. So the publication of Performance Data for Send Services is most welcome. As the Council begins a new improvement plan, it's essential that progress is visible to the most important stakeholders of all, the families. The scorecard contains data from March. Can the Council commit to publishing an update within the papers for June's Children's Services overview and scrutiny committee meeting, showing the full data for April and May? Can the Council further commit to publishing a similar update for the committee's September meeting, showing data for June, July and August? Can these include the following key EHC data? Number and percentages of plans refused or declined. Number and percentage of needs assessments refused or declined. Number of assessments delayed over 30 weeks. Number of assessments delayed over 50 weeks. And finally, can the Council confirm the relevant numbers for the above data during March? The second question, at February's Fall Council, members passed a motion in relation to safety valve. This compelled the Council to write to the Secretary of State for levelling up housing and communities, the Secretary of State for Education and the Chair or Chief Executive of the Local Government Association, variously seeking an extension to the statutory override, additional financial assistance, and a collaborative approach to these issues across local government. Have these letters been sent? What responses has the Council received, and how and when will the Council publish these documents? Thank you, Mr McKinstry, Councillor Burton. Thank you very much for reading that questions, all those questions and thank you, Alex, as always for sending them. My question by answer to hear what I'm trying to do is get the gist of what's wanting to know. My answer is, in particular, polish dancer on this occasion, because I'm trying to get to the backstory of what the information is. Start up with a question about the potential plans refused to kind. Now, the actual numbers on this are all can be actually quite complicated in that. Several of them are not refused to decline, but they change by negotiation with the parents and carers. So an actual number there, we need a bit of detail behind it. But the needs for future discussion, refusal does not automatically mean they will not get service and a decline can be with agreement with the parents carers. So those numbers are available now, get them, but it needs a story with it. The number of percentages, the number of assessment delayed over 30 weeks, we now have 70 families over 30 weeks, compared with 186 in September. This will all be completed by the end of this school term. The number of assessment delayed over 50 weeks, well, we don't do 50 week data, we do 52 week data. So the 52 weeks was looking at, so 52 weeks in April 12, what we're working through to complete these by that, by end of this, by end of July. There are no delays this academic year. The council is looking at the relevant numbers of the above date of March, 100% in six weeks timelines for April. This has been in the 90% since from September, and 84% timeless for 20 weeks excluding a backlog. Now, the question about continuing with this data, I totally agree that getting this data out in a way that can be understandable to people is really important. At the moment, it is available through the parent carers forum, but I think it needs to be able to be shared more widely and looking at the best way of sharing that. Now, it's asked about updating for children's ONS, and there will be some updates available for the next ONS meeting. Looking at the autumn meeting, what goes to children's ONS is actually they choose the chair and the committee choose. So I can't say you need to have this data at the committee, but I will commit to getting that data available so people can access it without it having to go through children's ONS. So the letters, the letters were sent by the leader of the council, and to date we have received a response from the chair of the LGA. At this time, no other replies have been received. The letter will be published as part of the leaders report in the June council meeting on Tuesday the 4th of June, by which time we hope to have a response from all three letters. Thank you, Councillor Burton. So we're going to move on to statements, and just to reassure you, that was a very thorough answer to those questions, which was needed. And we're not going to include that in the amount of time of that 30 minutes that we've got for public issues, just so we can get through as many statements as possible. So we're going to take the statements in order of which they were received by democratic services. It may be that we don't get through them all, but I can confirm they have all been circulated to Cabinet in advance of this meeting, and they will also be recorded in the minutes. So, let's have a look at our first statement. Sarah. Thank you statement number one comes from a resident of BCP. I've watched the debate around Paul Park at scrutiny group and would like to suggest a compromise for consideration. Some councillors are concerned about making a decision contrary to the public consultation with legal threats and public feeling high this is understandable concerns about interference and misinformation during the consultation are also valid. My proposal was twofold. One reopen the gate to one way, leaving traffic between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. in a second trial. This should include logging of traffic and any conflict between park staff and drivers to set up a citizens assembly to reveal the impact cost and benefits of different options to report back to the council with a recommendation. This will delay a final decision further, but this could be a long term solution that improves the part for all people and protects the council from costly legal action and rebuilds public trust. Statement number two is from Lucy Allen. It is hugely disappointing that following the ONS meeting, which was flooded with statements from the public, world members and officers in favour of making the White Cliff Park a closure permanent that the committee recommend the decision be passed to full council. It is absurd that a non key decision, one which could have been officer made would even be considered by full council. The level of scrutiny at ONS was minimal with most board members giving opinions rather than looking at the recommendation based on BCP's adopted policies. Preserving a scenic drive, increasing traffic in a park or being concerned about the optics of a flawed consultation result is not in any of BCP's policy documents. Creating cleaner, greener and more pleasant green spaces is please make this decision at cabinet in line with the officer's recommendation and report. Number three is from Tess Baker. Given that Paul Park was donated to the people in the late 1800s by Lord Windbourne, I would question whether BCP council had any legal right to close the gate to a vehicular access before public consultation. As a daily user of the park, both pedestrian and cyclists, firstly I have never encountered a speeding vehicle, drivers stopped for geese and ducks, and I have never noted any traffic surveys being carried out. What surveys have taken place during the council to decide immediate closure of the entrance without any public consultation? When the results of the public consultation came in, I understand 63% of people desired the vehicular access to remain open yet the entrance remains closed. This is not democracy and is not acceptable. Number four, statement from Kay Chambers. I write in support of the closure of Paul Park to through traffic. It is such a delight to have the space free from the noise fumes, pollution and risk of vehicular movements. It was originally gifted for people's leisure, enjoyment and relaxation and the change that has been made supports this. Please retain Paul Park as it is now for people, plants and wildlife, not cars. Number five is a statement from David Korpman. As a park staying resident in the 2023 election, I actively voted for candidates who put the environment first and was delighted to see Emily Harmon and Crispin Goodall elected. The council most associated with supporting the reopening of Keyhole Bridge and other standing on anti LPN slash pro car manifestos saw their vote collapse, elected knew what they doing. The mandate of the cabinet to keep the gate closed without reference to council is clear and is supported by significant majorities of residents actively engage over the gate closure by Emily and Crispin. I have similar findings from interacting with people in the park. The evidence is clear, returning the park to a park staying sandbox road bypass would be against the wishes of your voters, park users and local residents. The next statement is from Sue Smith. Thank you Sarah. Sue Smith, would you mind coming up and just using the microphone? There's a little button on the front to speak. The closure is in line with local and national policy and the council's own LC with an independent disability audit found no disadvantage to people with disabilities and fears over traffic congestion have proved unfounded. The consultation has been run and the pros and cons of the closure have been analyzed. The consultation report recognises the concerns of residents and the council has the ability to address these in final planning. Some opposition councillors have chosen to turn this policy and evidence led decision into an emotive issue, hence the recommendation that the decision be referred to full council. The recommendation was made on the basis of the number of responses for and against the closure, but as both councillors and residents are aware, this is a consultation, not a referendum. Residents on both sides have been calling for a prompt decision and will be disappointed by any further delay. Thank you, Miss Smith. I'm going to go back to Sarah to continue statements. So number seven is a statement from John Carter. I was surprised to hear the matter of the pool park gate closure may be referred to full council. The closure is supported by numerous local and national policies and I can find nothing in a way of policy that suggests we should have traffic driving through the park. It would appear to be a clear cut choice between doing something that aligns with the council's long term aims, or doing something that is contrary to those aims. In a survey on the council's vision priorities and key objectives, 78% of residents agreed that place and environment should be one of the council's priorities. The decision to keep the gate closed to protect the environment in pool park is very clear and referring it to full council merely delays that decision. Number eight is a statement from Judy Windwood. Members are elected to make decisions based on approved policy for the good of the area. The report states the benefits of closing the gate. This was generally ignored. Members must not be distracted by insecure consultation, which did not require names and addresses. It was not a referendum. Around 1980, we lived near the park in a terrorist house with a small garden to young children. The park was my walking route to town and our playground. It was a different place than fewer vehicles. The closure returns part of the park to this state. I remind members it's a park, not a highway. If people want a pleasant journey from work, I suggest they enjoy a walk in the park or try walking, cycling or taking a bus to work. Statement number nine is from Ross Hodder. I listened with interest to the ONS meeting regarding the Wycliffe Gate Trial. Despite some concern expressed around disabled access and possible increasing traffic on surrounding roads, it was reassuring to hear that vehicular access to the car parks is unchanged and there has been virtually no impact to traffic outside the park. The remaining argument therefore is focused around whether access to a scenic drive outweighs the improvements to environment and safety. To me, there is no comparison between the use of valuable public green spaces, a convenient shortcut with views and the safety and well-being of all other park users. Last year, I stopped cycling through the park with my son to the dolphins swimming pool because of the high level of through traffic. But now, following the Wycliffe closure, it's safe for families to use. I support accepting the officer report recommendation. Statement ten from Russell Trent. I am writing in support of the permanent closure of Paul Park's Wycliffe Gate to motorize traffic and to also call for cabinet to make the decision either way on this matter. I do not agree that it should go to full council. This is a minor change to the operation of a park and a decision that could have been taken by an officer. We elect members to shape and determine policy and if BCP Council is committed to protecting green spaces and encouraging active travel, it should agree with me that the closure is aligned to BCP policy. I visit the park regularly with my children, sometimes in car, mostly on the bus, but we visit the park as a destination, not as a means to get elsewhere in the borough. Parks should not be used to alleviate motorized traffic elsewhere. Number eleven, a statement from Gary Liffmore. I am writing in my support for the permanent closure of the Wycliffe Paul Park Gate. Closure of the gate aligns with BCP Council policies to reduce traffic, especially serving Paul Park. The park is much more pleasant without the consonant stream of through traffic. One of my older family members, who has mobility issues, can still access all areas of the park as she did with her late husband, but in a more peaceful surroundings, remembering the walks they had together. A park is a place to enjoy the tranquility and should not be used as a relief load for traffic elsewhere. I find the park environment is much more pleasant to walk around now, through traffic has been stopped. Our green spaces should be protected for future generations. Our elected members need to ensure their decision aligns with BCP Council policies. Number twelve is a statement from David Foote. I find it ridiculous that you're still breathing the closing of the road in Paul Park. I live and work in Paul. You're adding twenty minutes on to my motorcycle ride home with the increased traffic and danger to cyclists and motorcyclists, creeping along the inside and outside of traffic, letter that in the fuel used in your stupidity attempt, making a difference I can only presume members of the council live on or around this route, very much like camp for cliffs that I understand more speed cameras are to be installed. I requested speed humps and/or cameras down Princess Road. That's a fast rat run and was told until a fatality happens nothing will be done. I have saved that email, will send it to the born off echo and the family of who this may affect shame on you for not listening to your constituents. Number thirteen is a statement from Eleanor Paul Gowski. I'm writing to say that I'm appalled that the wishes of the majority of people, 63%, who took the time to answer with well thought out research answers, the consultation survey, requesting that the park remain open and not being listened to. This makes a mockery of any future consultation survey. We were originally told months ago that the closure would be for a month as the consultation took place. That was not true. It is now obvious that the reopening of the park was never an option. This must not be allowed to happen. The park must be reopened in accordance with the consultation results. Number fourteen is a statement from a resident of BCP. I'm a full-time pool-borne wheelchair user, spent lots of time in Paul Park. I don't drive and avoid car use, but understand a car is sometimes necessary. I don't understand the anger about this. The arguments against the closure are nonsensical. Turning a car or pulling out of a gate isn't a problem for anyone safe to drive. I suffer with fatigue but would never want to be driven through a park without stopping. The whole point of a park is that it's somewhere to spend time, not to drive through. It isn't McDonald's. Driving out the gate you entered is normal when visiting somewhere by car. Visiting is now a delight. There's birdsong, not the rumbler cars. I've been visiting more since the gate closed. It's back to being a people's park. Thank you, Sarah. We'll give you a little rest whilst we have Susan Stockwell in the room who's going to come and read her statement. Yesterday, I visited Paul Park at dusk on foot via White Cliff Roadgate. The first site which greeted me was a group of young women, relaxed, happy and laughing, enjoying travelling along the car-free stretch of road towards the gate on higher scooters. A stark contrast indeed to the dire warnings of women, including myself being too frightened to visit Paul Park without the guardianship of passing motor vehicles. Improved natural surveillance reducing crime when cycling and walking increases and vehicle use decreases is so well proved by L.T.N. low traffic neighbourhood data that police elsewhere have supported keeping them. My own criminology training was that a statement from a cyclist or pedestrian is needed to secure a conviction, e.g. for street crime or burglary. As the view from a car is simply not good enough to stand up in court, dash cams tend to be trained on other motorists, not pedestrians. Thank you Mrs Stockwell. We're going to go back to Staira to continue with the statements. So, statement 16 comes from Malcolm Beb. I'm a poor householder since 1985. I welcome the restriction of through traffic in Paul Park, having found the environment more pleasant in recent visits, especially in the southern parts. I firmly believe that the park should be a peaceful destination where traffic disturbance should be minimal to maximise enjoyment and safety for park users. I further believe that using the park as a relief from traffic congestion around the Civic Centre area is the wrong approach. Traffic congestion should be addressed at the source and using a public leisure park as a relief road is neither a sustainable nor a credible solution. Instead it draws attention away from the need to resolve congestion issues while doing little to reduce them. Statement 17 is from the Thompson family. Please reopen the gate with immediate effect as per the majority consultation response. My 93-year-old relative, Park Stane Road, enjoys the park, not registered disabled, we drive through, stopping when possible, sometimes walking, sometimes simply the drive is soothing. Our inability to take scenic drives we used to is affecting well-being. Since the closure, one more traffic caught in turning in the park more fumes, two significant queues, three conflict by disabled spaces, four increased traffic, difficult to getting to nursery leisure centre, five significant traffic, Park Stane Road, six queues towards Lilliput, seven fast cyclist scooters, motorbikes in through park, eight increase in youth's loitering, smashing glass. The closure makes no logical senses and is not backed by need or data. This issue is making the council unpopular when voter support is essential. The council can recover this by applying common sense, reverse the decision. Number 18 is a statement from Sophie Clegg. Since the closure, I cycle with my kids through the park to after school lessons at the Paul and Dolphin Centre. Once we're over Sam Banks Road, we're passed by a handful of cars all the way to town, cycling down Orchard Avenue and through the park, it's so easy that we consistently choose to cycle. Previously, we will be passed by a steady stream of vehicles all along this route, cycling with kids in traffic is stressful and with bad weather or kids mood or behaviour, it often didn't feel safe enough and would normally hop in the car. Closing the gate has not prevented people from driving into the park, but reopening the gate would remove this safe route, denying us this choice and putting journeys like ours back into the car, please keep the gate closure and keep the park safe and accessible to all modes of travel for everyone. Number 19 is a statement from Jane Foote. My family have lived by the White Cliffgate entrance for a great many years, driving through the park back to our house has been convenient, pleasant and quicker for us when returning from the west. We were therefore skeptical about the gate closure and were initially against it. However, we are now enjoying the benefits of less traffic, not only outside our house, but also whilst walking our dog and sitting in our garden. We now fully appreciate the reasons behind the gate closure and totally so. While our drive home is now a little longer, we believe that residents deserve a more peaceful and pleasant experience when using the park. The gate closure has made walking in the park feel safer. I now even cycle into the pool town centre, which I never used to. I hope that cabinet makes the right decision to close the gate permanently. Number 20, statement from Simon Dunsby. I should like to say that Paul Park is a park, not a rat fun. My parents took me there in the 80s and now take my children there. The grandparents in their late 70s and children feel safer without cars using the park as a road. Number 21 is Bronbrian Bowman. In addition to this being a waste of taxpayers money, I take great offence at a public space being shut off to anybody who has the great misfortune to no longer have easy mobility or ability to get in and out of the car easily. My late father was a mobile and one of the few pleasures he had in life was being able to drive through Paul Park through to Wycliffe and have a scenic tour without the stress of having to get his wheelchair out of the car. Thank you Sarah. The next statement is from Ian Lawrence, who I believe is here in person. Mr Lawrence. Morning everyone. A 3,388, 63%. A majority want Twemlow gate reopened as it adds mileage, delay, congestion, pollution, while hitting car dependent, old, frail, young families would be tourists and park livelihoods. Proving closures environmental improvement requires before and after evidence, but lacked water purity, noise, air quality, business takings, road traffic accidents or impact on wildlife measurements. Envalidating continued closing dots investigated only six disabled regulars, not BCP's disabled thousands. Findings were statistically irrelevant, unrepresentative, invalidating closure conclusions, traffic sensors, once in September and once in February, couldn't identify trends as data was too sparse. Councillor Hadley incorrectly asserted the majority wanted the gate closed, despite two thirds of consultees who didn't, and that 600 who omitted postcodes voted multiple times for reopening. He recommended the assumed wealthy old and disabled who supported car access go to hangars prehead. He rejected afternoon only closure as extra staffing costs, while favouring new roundabout and parking. Conclusion, closures environmental improvement trial, improved. So please listen to the majority and open the gate. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Lawrence. We're going to go back to Sarah. So statement number 23 comes from Lee Atkins by emailing you in regards to the above and to state my utter disgust in what has been happening in and around Paul, with all of these roads being narrowed for cycle lanes, roads closed for LTNs, et cetera, but more importantly, the closing of the park for vehicles driving through. BCP had had a consultation which shows the residents wanting it open, but no, Councillor Hadley wants his way and will ignore what residents want and just do it. I'm emailing democratic services will be democratic about Paul Park and adhere to what residents want the park open for all. Number 24 is a statement from Anne Jacobs. The closure of this gate is unnecessary and detrimental to the mental health and wellbeing of both my elderly and disabled parents. Trying to drive through now is dangerous as the exit is obstructed, sometimes gridlocked, causing a safety access issue in an emergency. I am physically unable to push mum or mother-in-law in a wheelchair, and as an unpaid care, taking them out for a drive is one of the few small treats I can provide. The park is unique in this area for this purpose. Just close the gate to traffic at around 4pm as you do until 10am to stop the right run. As a council, your duty is to serve the taxpayer and the results of your own consultation as clearly given you directive. Please reopen this gate. Number 25 is a statement from Daniel Glennon. Paul Park is, as its name suggests, a public park. Public park should be a place for urban residents that spend time in nature, which studies have shown its beneficial for mental health. For children to play, for people to exercise and for encouraging nature, they should not be three routes for traffic. It's ludicrous that this closure didn't happen much sooner. BCP has awful congestion and very poor air quality. For far too long, the needs of car drivers have been placed first in our urban planning. It's time to redesign our towns for people, not cars. The closure of the gate in Paul Park should be the first measure of many to reduce car dependency in BCP, to benefit the physical and mental health of all residents, just not, not just the vocal motorists. We need to encourage cycling, walking and wider use of public transport. Number 26 comes from Gerald Andrews. I have lived here for over 62 years and have loved being able to drive through Paul Park via Keyhole Bridge. The model yacht lake passed the miniature train waving to passengers and on through. This enabled me to relax mentally. I do not have time to stop. You have now prohibited me from doing this. The park has designed so people could drive through. In fact, in the 1930s, motor speed trials were held in the park. There have never been any accidents. Car drivers I've seen are always courteous and adhere to the speed limit. There is chaos at the only exit with regular Mexican standoffs. Gate's open so everyone can enjoy the park, especially people like me, who feel better when we can drive through it. Thank you for reading my letter. A statement from Carol Norman. I'm writing to express my support for reopening the White Cliff Gate at Paul Park, maintaining vehicle access is crucial. The park provides a central green space that is particularly beneficial for the mental health of residents, especially the elderly and disabled. Continuous access through the park ensures they can easily reach different areas without undue physical strain. For those experiencing a meltdown, the ability to drive directly through the park offers a safety valve, providing a calming environment without unnecessary detours. The closure has led to increased traffic and emissions on surrounding roads as vehicles are forced to navigate around the park, contradicting environmental goals. The 63% of residents who favour reopening the gates highlights the community's preference for accessible, inclusive and environmentally conscious use of the park. I urge the council to respect the consultation results and reopen the gates for the benefit of all.

1. A statement from Mary Scott. I urge you to reconsider the closure of White Cliff Gate in Paul Park. The recent consultation clearly shows that 63% of residents want the gates to remain open, ignoring this majority opinion would undermine the democratic process and trust in local governance. The closure has created daily chaos, with buses getting stuck and causing significant disruption at the only exit. While cyclists benefit, they often travel at speeds greater than cars, posing hazards to pedestrians, sea regions park accident. Addressing the climate emergency requires more strategic investments. Enhancing public transport facilities and creating better connectivity for all forms of transport would be far more effective. Closing a gate is not a productive solution. The council should serve the community's interest, not its own. For the benefit of the community, please listen to the majority and reopen White Cliff Gate to vehicles.
2. A statement from Sebastian Norman Andrews. I'm writing to you because I want to tell you why Paul Park just stay open to cars. I like the drive-through Paul Park because it makes for a nicer journey. This is really important to me because I have severe anxiety and driving through the park helps me feel calm and safe. I really like the views in the park. They are pretty and make me feel happy. It is also a safe and familiar journey for me and my family. We've always driven through the park and it's part of our routine. I hope you will listen to us and keep the gates open so everyone can enjoy the park, especially people like me, you feel better when we can drive through it.
3. A statement from Eunice Marston. The BCP consultation is very widely believed to contain bias towards the outcome desired by those in control of it. Despite this, the outcome clearly showed the will of the people to reopen the gate. The officer report does its best to conceal this clear fact by suggesting that some age group should have less weight put to their views than others and using differing graph techniques to play down the clear but unwanted result. Paul Park is the town park and is also named the People's Park when given to the people by Lord Windborne. The people have spoken about their park and want the gate fully reopened. The choice is support the portfolio holder and BCP officer or support the will of the people you represent by sending this decision to full council for decision.
4. A statement from Kail Lehi. I appreciate the consultation was not a vote, but I feel it is undemocratic if the council ignore the views of the consultation and keep the white cliff gate closed. It will undermine faith in councillors who were elected to serve the people of BCP. Whilst blue badge holders still have full access, you have currently removed the prettiest part of the park from people needing to enjoy it by car, such as the ill or frail. The portfolio holder appears unwilling to consider compromise, including the gate closing early, which would be cost minimal and also negate the alleged rat-run rush hour. Closure will bring little benefit in reducing pollution due to heavy traffic already nearby. It is not to stop car pedestrian accidents. There have been none and appears simply of indicative act for some people due to disgruntled over the keyhole bridge debacle.
5. A statement from Sarah Morgan. Please respect the numbers as responded by residents in your survey. They have provided lived experiences through this process and by direct letters, not perceptions. The survey clearly identifies protected minority groups by age and ability as protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. Please do not exclude them. Please do not base decisions on perceptions, absent data and inappropriate comparisons. Please do not decide because of approval of other internal infrastructure items irrelevant to the gate access. Please listen to your electorate.
6. A statement from Julia Wilde. There are no problems specific to the gate in Paul Park that have or will be solved by its closure. Indeed, closing it has actually created problems. Making people double back and go the long way around the park has increased fuel usage. It also increases fumes, causes stress and anxiety for drivers and passengers and takes away the sheer pleasure of our beautiful park for far too many people, especially the disabled. The sea air blows fumes away. Moving traffic to park stay road simply concentrates fumes in other areas. As for safety, drivers routinely slow down for ducks, swans and geese. What an ideal environment in which a teacher youngsters how to cross the road safely. Cyclists who do don't ring bells by too fast and on the pavement are a far greater threat. The people have voted via the consultation. Is anyone listening?
7. A statement from Ian Clark. In documents regarding the trial gate closure, the heritage fund grant expenditure, the council stated aims to improve safety within the park, yet the following failings are evident. Speed limit signage is inadequate with only one circular sign on a lamppost at the Kingland Road entrance, none at the Civic Centre entrance and no road markings between them. Any signage that the closed right cliff gate is ineffectual. Following resurfacing the new speed humps are not as effective as the previous ones. To leave the disabled parking areas inside the white cliff gate, cars need to execute a multiple point turn and care home and disabled many buses no longer use that section. Anti-social behaviour could rise with no passing cars. With only one car exit into Kingland Road there could be serious congestion. Drivers may be completely unaware of any speed limit so safety aspects have not been adequately considered.
8. A statement from Anthony Winter. I do not consent to this closure due to the impact this could have on many people's well-being, especially my own. I used to drive to Paul Park to meet friends and walk my dog, then proceeding down to the beach for a walk. This was a route I would take with my late wife when she was in the later stages of her care and I'm no longer able to relive these memories which I find extremely upsetting. As such I no longer visit Paul Park. This closure will have had similar impact to many of us elderly and disabled residents at BCP and we feel completely discriminated against by BCP Council.
9. State Month 36 comes from Sharon Hunt. In recent years Paul Park speed restrictions were increased and effective traffic calming reduced. Had the opposite action been taken traffic flow by those wishing to save time would have reduced, those who historically used the park as a pleasant driving route would have been the only users. My late father-in-law in his last Braille weeks of life as the founder of North Haven Yacht Club would enjoy us driving him around Sandbanks. On the way back his request would be drive me through the park. Many have similar stories. The gate closure leaves people unable to use a park for this type of purpose which is incredibly important to them. Some have requested that when their time comes they would like the park to be part of their final journey. Tonighting people this right is unfair and bordering on cruelty. Thank you to democratic services. That was a lot of reading but we are now at the 30 minutes and we made our way through I think we were at 36 comments out of the 48. So we will move on from there but just to reassure again that all of the statements that were submitted have been circulated and will be considered in our decision-making and thank you for those who came along and I'm sorry if you didn't get your chance to give your statement in person. So we're going to move on now to agenda item five which is recommendations from overview and scrutiny board and the committees that are not otherwise on the agenda. Councillor Bartlett I can see you're online. Do you have any items from overview and scrutiny board that are not on the agenda? I don't thank you. Thank you Councillor Bartlett can I check with Councillor Rigby who is from environment and place overview and scrutiny committee. Thank you Councillor Rigby. We also have Councillor Canavan who is chair of health overview and scrutiny. Oh, I'm looking on the on the screen. Thank you. And Councillor Dove from Children's isn't in the room. Thank you. So, as I said earlier, we move on to the decision-making part of our agenda. I'd like to bring forward item 10, which is the improvement of environment in pool part for a trial closure of the park entrance to motor traffic. So, this is going to be proposed and presented by Councillor Hadley. Do we have a seconder? I'm Hadley seconder, please. Thank you. Councillor Martin over to you. Councillor Hadley. Thank you, Chair. We covered a lot of detail in the environment and place overview and scrutiny committee last week. Paul Park has been closed to motorised traffic before 10am since the 1980s and Kings Park and Merrick Park were both entirely closed to through traffic over 20 years ago. Appendix 9 shows the original conveyance in March 1886 to the borough of Paul, which defines the original primary use to be managed as a park and a pleasure ground. We have carefully studied the concentration responses and the many items of correspondence from those keen to ensure their views were heard, including the 26 statements to over you and scrutiny and the 47 statements today. All of these have been carefully reviewed, but this was never billed as a referendum or the only consideration for the authority. When Keill Bridge was set to be reopened, the majority feedback of 82% from the public was to keep it shut, and this was overruled by then Councillor Mike Green based on his view of the needs of traffic around the park. The responses to consultation this time around are very polarised, reflecting the campaign that's been undertaken and the really strong feelings that the public have about this place. The importance of outdoor leisure space and changing work and leisure patterns have been highlighted during and since the COVID pandemic. The pressures on our urban parks will only increase especially as there are an increasing number of flats across the the whole area with no or limited outdoor space. This puts more reliance on our main parks for leisure, especially on Paul Park. This is not just about suits in the residents living immediately adjacent to the park but enhancing the place as a leisure destination for all visitors. Those coming from the east can park alongside the modal boats area or in cops clothes car park or enter via the east or sell down gates. There are in particular a range of dedicated parking base throughout the park for use by the disabled. If you go to any outdoor leisure attraction, the traffic and parking has managed to reduce its impact on the enjoyment of the space. The nature of Paul Park is taken up by the Moting Lake and the through traffic has come to dominate the remainder. It is important to set this change within the policy context of the Council. The BCP corporate strategy includes a vibrant place where people in nature flourish, our green spaces flourish and support the well-being of both people in nature. The green infrastructure strategy prioritises healthy living and well-being, resilience to climate change, nature recovery, economic recovery, prosperity and place making. Public health doors that support and positive comments in the papers about well-being. The local cycling and walking infrastructure improvement plan was also mentioned and the park features within that. There has been a long-standing ambition to reduce the impact of vehicles in Paul Park dating back to the 1990s which is supported in a master plan from that time. Chair, given the extensive debates at the Environment and Place Review and Screening Committee and comments from several members of that committee highlighting that they were from other towns are not really familiar with the park. I do not think that this simple change warrants a full Council debate. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hadley. Just to confirm, we have got some Councillors in the room and online who aren't members of Cabinet. The process that we usually go through next is to call on the relevant chair of the Screening Committee to see whether they would like to add anything. We then go to other Councillors for them to have their say. There is a limit of three minutes as otherwise we will run out of time. Once everyone has said their bit, we'll then go to Cabinet for a discussion and for any amendments to be debated and then for a decision by a majority vote. So this item went to Environment and Place Review and Screening Committee last week. The recommendation from that committee has been published alongside the papers for this meeting, but I would like to invite Councillor Rigby up to address Cabinet on their recommendations. Thank you, Deputy Leader. I was trying to be fairly brief. I know you were in the room while we were having this meeting last week and I'm sure it's been seen by many of the Cabinet members as well. So we had a good debate on this. We had a lot of public engagements and I expressed at the time and I'll do so again that if we had this much public engagement on every issue which we bought to Environment and Place Review and Screening, I'd be very, very happy. So I really welcome people coming in and asking questions and making statements. The main debate which we had through that I think has been heard by a lot of the public statements today. It was either sure people enjoy a scenic drive or can people go using it as a wrap run. And you can still have a scenic drive because there's what is intended to do with that stretch of road, which is closed from the white cliff gate coming down. It's not actually closed to disable that to some parking at the moment. That was an issue which came up. And we also discussed the experiences of the various Councillors in the room and who also came to as well and their use of the park as well. I won't go into great detail on that. What I will do is we did have one recommendation which came out of the debate. And that was to refer this matter to full Cabinet for decision that was supported by six members voting for one against and two abstentions. And the reason that that was put forward was that it should have further engagement with more Councillors being able to be involved. We didn't actually debate that because there was seen to be some agreement in the room that that would be the decisions. There was no fair debate on why anyone voted against this or abstained on it. And I know you've got a lot to get through. So I think I'm happy leaving it there. Thank you. Thank you very much Councillor Rigby. We will be sure to address that recommendation as part of our debate. Now we also have Councillors in the room who would like to speak on this item. I think I've got Councillor Harmon. Councillor any other Councillors wishing to speak. Councillor Bartlett, I'll make a note of your name. Oh gosh, we've got a few. Councillor Chapman law and Councillor Kannavan. So let's start with Councillor Harmon. With respect, Madam Vice Chairman, Councillor but I have also asked to speak and I'm in the room. I have not been acknowledged. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor but I will add you to the list. Thank you, Madam Vice Chairman. Councillor Harmon. Thank you, Chair. Last week's environment and place overview and scrutiny meeting. I spoke about how much Councillor Goodall and I have done to actively engage with Parkstone residents on this divisive issue and encourage them to take part in the consultation process. And it was hoped that through this process, I would have a clear mandate on how to best proceed in representing the views of residents across the Parkstone Ward, yet I don't. It remains a topic that people feel both passionately and polarised about. The consultation showed largely strong views behind and this has been our experience across the world as well. On the doorstep, I've spoken to a large number of people in disbelief that the Council would think twice about reopening the white cliff access point, given what they deem to be the obvious benefits to all Park users. I've also had many recent conversations with residents who strongly share the view that given 63% of responses to the consultation once the gate reopened, democracy must therefore prevail. And I genuinely wish it was that simple. As has been pointed out by many and on both sides, there have been flaws in this consultation process. I've had people tell me that they are filled in the consultation several times, and I've also spoken to people whose opinion has changed since they've filled it in, either because they have legitimately changed their mind since experiencing the closure. And there have been quite a number of these, and I know one of the statements from the public earlier mentioned that as well, or that they first build it in based on what they later found out to be incorrect information or assumptions. And I'm really, really pleased that the overview and scrutiny board have identified that there are currently serious issues surrounding the consultation process as a whole, and we'll be looking in the next few months at how future consultations across the three towns can be improved to ensure they are meaningful, robust and reliable as they absolutely should be. And I want to let the residents of Parkstone know that I hear them. I hear clearly the passionate voices of those that want the gate reopened as they ask why the Council want to fix something they do not believe is broken. And I empathize with those who feel their enjoyment of the park has been taken away from them. I also hear those that have embraced the closure, a move that many feel is a long time coming, and I recognize also that there are a large number of residents, both young and old, able bodied and those less abled, that have benefited from the increased peace, safety and freedom that the trial closure has ushered in. It's fair to say that the views across Parkstone are incredibly mixed, and I do not envy you cabinet your decision today. However, I do know, and I trust that whatever decision is made, it won't be made lightly, and it won't be made in ignorance. I implore you to consider all of the evidence before you. I know that all members of cabinet, take the role you've been elected to carry out incredibly seriously, and that you recognize the heightened level of public feeling on this particular issue. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Harman. I have just had a look and of course, Councillor but you requested to speak so I'm going to actually go to you next so, Councillor but please go ahead. Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chairman. The recommendation in front of you is from the Environment and Place Group Committee that this matter go to Council, that's the recommendation in front of you with regard to this item today. And I am amazed, firstly, to hear from Councillor Hadley that regrettably he doesn't feel that there is enough interest in this matter that warrants this going to full Council, where we've just heard from Councillor Harman, who was mostly motive in her application and fair and balanced in what she said that there are 76 members, and we all represent award. The consultation was, I believe, PCP wide, therefore we should all be able to speak on this matter because it is of joins and several interests to all members who represent their residents. Council is definitely a place for this matter. It is the democratic imperative that all elected members are able to speak on behalf of their representatives. That's why we have elections. Unfortunately, this whole matter has been made extremely motive and complex. It is becoming accurate. We've heard about the risk factors with regard to surveys being filled in many times with regard to people filling in surveys who are not domiciled in BCP and therefore skewing the figures, which in fairness could skew the figures either way. I'm not speaking for or against this particular item. I'm speaking on behalf of my residents and Creekmore and the greater good. Therefore, as I said in fairness, it could be that if these figures were so messaged, we've heard that risk that we could have had 63% who actually were saying closed the park or closed the entrance, we don't know. And we're not able to interrogate properly, even though we spent an awful lot of money having consultation or consultees coming in to give us further evidence based on statistics, because the first statistics, we're not able to be interpreted appropriately. One thing which really concerns me is with the consultation process consultation isn't just write up a survey, pop it out and then get back people's views and ignore it. That's not how it works. How it works is you engage first. We have an engagement policy. It's very long and it's a process to have got that. It's a very succinct policy and it works. It's been wholly ignored. What I believe and what we know should have happened, what certainly the public feel should have happened is that we should have asked the public, how are we going to engage with you on this. What questions should we be asking you? What are your thoughts as to how we engage in the first place, then we engage, then we consult, and then we use that consultation. This consultation is not the people's, as Councillor Hadley said, he felt it was people's sentiments that were coming back. These aren't sentiments. The public are not stupid. They are a sophisticated group of people who with arguments on both sides are saying how they feel about something, and we should consider these and not just put them down to sentiment. My first concern is the absolute way in which this is unprecedented. I've been Councillor 20 seconds. I've never known interest in such a small matter. Now, it's not small to the public. Don't get me wrong, but what I'm saying is in the run of things when we're talking about multi million pound budgets. This is a tiny matter, but there is massive interest. Therefore, I have stated all the reasons before scrutiny when I attended. There were seven or eight reasons as to why things needed to be reconsidered. My main concern is that the consultation itself is inherently flawed. And it should therefore be redone. However, what should happen in the first instance, is this matter needs to go to the Council for debate, as recommended by your overview and scrutiny committee whom I hope you'll need. Councillor but sorry to interrupt, but I'm nearly finished. I'm nearly finished. Thank you so much for your patience. I would like this, please, to be sent to Council to decide on this proposal, as it's been proven beyond doubt, as how important public per se, whether for or against with regard to the closure of the sentence. Thank you for your indulgence Madam Vice Chairman. I'm extremely grateful for hearing. Were you hearing me today? Thank you. Thank you so much, Councillor. But, right, we're going to go to Councillor Bartlett, followed by Councillor Canavan, and then Councillor Chapman Law. So, Councillor Bartlett. Yeah, good morning, Vice Chair. All I would say is that I do agree with Councillor, but we have an overview of scrutiny committee for a purpose. The matter is debated at length and in detail, and the overall majority, and it was a large majority voted to recommend that this matter go to full Council. Don't deny that the opportunity, given that that's a democratic process, we shouldn't, we should not ignore the recommendations of all the work that that committee has done on this matter. So, for that point only, I would say that it must go to for Council. Otherwise, if it doesn't, I fear the outcome is already predetermined by this cabinet. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Bartlett. Councillor Canavan. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for this opportunity. I didn't know, obviously, coming into this meeting, whether a cabinet would agree to the recommendation from overview and scrutiny to go to full Council. So, I didn't know where I was going to get the opportunity to make the comments that I'm allowed to make. Paragraph 51 of the paper says that consultation that has been carried out in relation to this is in line with established practice and procedures. I just want to make the point that was made at the overview and scrutiny committee. If that's the case, then those established practices and procedures really need to be looked at again. This consultation is really clumsy, and I made that comment before about other processes like this Council has undertaken. We have got to get that right, because we're not. But the other thing that concerns me, having, having watched the debate, the overview and scrutiny committee was, I think one of the difficulties was that in terms of the access, especially around access for helping and the same model, those with limited mobility, but that those answers were not, those questions were really not answered. And that in the options set out at paragraph 42B talks about further design and costings would need to be done for disabled spaces and vehicle turning. And then paragraph 61, it talks about the risk assessment. It talks about two things. One is about the fact that that design is unfunded. And therefore, nobody could get the residents that were making the comments about this issue were not able to get any clarity about what was intended around that design. What was going to happen in order to ensure that their access could be established and protected. So, so that I think was unfortunate to say the least. But I think the other issue that also comes out of the risk assessments is the reputational damage. And it's on lunch. I think it's too late. Because the way which is current, this has been carried out has already caused reputational damage to this authority. And I think that's really very unfortunate. In terms of where we go from here, you know, as we see here today, that gate is still closed. There has been a trial about access with the intention of trying to prevent through traffic, which is fine. But none of the other options that have been highlighted in the paper have been looked at. So they haven't been trial. Perhaps the caravan, which is getting to the end of your three minutes. Okay, thank you. So I am concerned that those are the options haven't been trial. For example, the point has been making representations about the time closure that hasn't really been looked at seems to have been very quickly dismissed in the paper. So I am concerned. And I think there is an advantage in having this debate to the full count simply because there is a time then to review those those points and to make a further comment to the council meeting. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Canavan. Right, I have Councillor Chapman law. Thank you very much. One question we need to answer in what circumstances is it okay to drive through a park. Can we facilitate those without costing millions and at the same time stopping the rat running that the figures clearly show is happening. The shorter answer, there isn't one. You can still drive through the park. I did it the other day, driving from the Civic Centre and out through Tilden. Myself and others who have shown support for the closure have been abused, attacked, intimidated online for our views on the closure. I have seen examples of strawman, water battery, personal attacks and claims that this is just the beginning and that of the supposed goal to close the park to cars completely. All designed not to engage in debate but to suppress it. Everyone is entitled to their view, but it must be accompanied by meaningful discussion without personal attacks. I'm here today to speak on behalf of those who want to see the gate to stay closed. It is true that a large number of submissions through the consultation wanted it to be reopened. However, the goals of a decent proportion of those people wanting to have the park open are those as a three route appear to not be interested in using the park as it is intended to be used. That is a park. Instead, they seem to want to use it as a diversion to avoid congestion elsewhere. I believe we should put the needs of people using the park as a park above those who want to use it as a route run. Just like Bournemouth Council did with Merrick Park, Kings Park, all those years ago. So, Cabinet, for the physical and mental health for real park users, please vote to keep the white cliff gate closed to traffic. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Councillor Chapman-Law. Can I just ask if there are any other Councillors in the room who are not members of Cabinet who wish to speak on this item? No, no one's indicating. So, we are now going to open this up for Cabinet to speak. Can I see if anyone would like to say anything on this? Councillor Andy Martin. Thank you, Deputy Leader. A huge amount has been said already in different meetings, obviously this morning. So, I will try and be brief and cut out some of the things I was going to say because those points have been well made. I'd first like to say that as a representative from Christchurch who takes my responsibilities across the whole of BCP very seriously, I think I can hopefully look at this for a physical and political distance and not be caught up with the very clear emotion and passions on both sides, which I fully accept. But I have a few points and then a quote. Some of these points have been made, but I'd like to say that I support them. This is a park. People can still drive in and out of it. They can still enjoy it and everything it offers. I don't understand how reducing traffic in a public park is not a good thing in the big picture. What is our understanding of what a park should be and is? Let me ask the question that we have the opportunity to create new parks in 2024. Would we create new parks by putting roads through them? I'd rather doubt it. One thing that irritates me, I have to say, is the constant anti-motorist refrain about the council. I'm a driver. I'm not a cyclist. I don't believe this council is anti-motoring. It is, in fact, to reframe it, it's pro-environment and pro-safety. We are as a council and in our corporate strategy and in our own personal views in our wards. We are here to create a sustainable urban environment. This is part of that and it fits entirely with the council's health and wellbeing agenda. Of course, we've heard this morning, there are different views and different perspectives on what health and wellbeing is. Also, it fits in with our cleaner, greener, safer agenda. Several references have been made to democracy this morning in public statements and what the council, what we as councillors should do. This is a rather arcane quote, but I'm going to use it anyway from a philosopher who wrote to an MP, who wrote to his constituents. Your representative owes you not only his industry, but his judgement and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. What that means is that yes, this is the essence between the difference between a representative and a delegate. We are elected to use our judgement in making decisions and not to be mandated. I did not get elected to be told what to do. I listen, then I make a judgement, and I think when my colleagues mention that just now, and I doubt that anybody around the table was elected to not to use their judgement. It's called representative democracy, and it's obvious that on any issue, not everyone is going to like the judgement, but that is how the system works. So my view for what it's worth is this needs no further delay. I support it and I'd like to get on with it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Martin, for some very philosophical words there. Can I ask anyone else, Councillor Mike Cox? Thank you, Deputy Leader, and I wanted to just take a moment to thank all the officers and Councillor Hadley and all those people that have engaged in this. However, I must confess to being somewhat staggered that closing apart gates to traffic has caused so many thousands of petition signatures, placard waving demonstrations and 47 statements to a cabinet. When the world is falling apart and the country is on its knees, BCP has had to endure the biggest reduction in its budget ever with cuts to services to the most vulnerable. The Council officers have had to spend significant resources dealing with this. I share Councillor Rigby's view and I think it was Councillor Boxsey as well, that we've spent an enormous amount of time on this. Pool Park is exactly what it says it is. It's a park. It's not a cut through. It's not an opportunity to view the scenery from a motor vehicle. It's a park. No one is banning parks from entering the park. There is no restriction to people enjoying the park on the contrary. Personally, the statement for me, I think it was a Lucy Allen sums up my feelings perfectly when she said, and I quote,preserving a scenic drive is not in any of BCP's policy documents. Creating a greener, cleaner and more pleasant green space is." And she's absolutely right. Cleaner and greener, safer is front and centre and everything we've said and everything we do. As for the recommendations of the ONS, there was no suggestion from ONS that the recommendations were wrong, or that they needed changing, or that there was any alternatives. I was struck by the last statement made by Ian Beechings, which we didn't get time to look at. When he seems like me to be moaned, all the fuss that has been caused, and goes on to a factory saying that we should be cowards and bow to those with the loadiest voices. Now, listening to residents is vitally important, and this is so much time. This is why so much time and effort has been taken over this item. As has already been said on multiple times, this is a consultation, not a referendum. Taking this to council will only suck up more time of officers, delay the decisions, and risk a key objective of BCP to be a greener, a cleaner, greener and safer council. We have a cabinet system. It's an executive decision, not a council decision. Otherwise, every controversial decision would go to council, and the business of the council would grind to a halt. Like Councillor Martin, I didn't become a councillor to make the most popular decisions. I became a councillor to make the right decisions for the long-term health and wellbeing of the people of BCP. So therefore, I am supporting this recommendation. Thank you very much, Councillor Cox, if I could ask you to turn your microphone off. Thank you. Councillor Richard Burton. Thank you very much, Deputy Leader. I've spent quite a lot of time reading the comments. I attended this group scrutiny meeting. I sat in the corner over there quietly. I didn't see anything because I say anything because I wanted to listen. I've read a lot of emails over the past few weeks. I've read a lot of Facebook posts. I spend a bit of time in the park. I don't actually go into the pool park a huge amount now because where I live, I'm a merely resident. I used to use a park more when I live in Liverpool when my daughter was young. She learned to ride a bike actually on the track in the park park. I've found memories of it. But I have visited three times this week. I've visited by car twice. I've driven through the park where the bits you can have turned round. I've parked the car. I've walked into the park. I haven't visited by bike recently. I have sighted through the thing. One thing I would say is, I know you didn't mean this quite like this when you said it. I don't see myself as a cyclist or a motorist or a walker. I see myself as a person who chooses to use different sorts of transports at times. One thing that I would say is that I also spoke to a lot of people in the park. I was that strange fan who cost us strangers in the park to talk to them and to find out what they thought. What their decisions may today, it will disadvantage on people and advantage others. It will do both to some groups of people. That's the definition of politics. That's what it is. Our job is to where your pros and cons. Other people I've spoken to, a number of them were actually on the face of it quite ambivalent. I would say a lot of the emails I got, they weren't. A few people I spoke to were definitely in one can for another. Quite a few weren't. When they thought about it, summed up the arguments quite well. They summed up the pros and cons. I must admit, I wasn't fair. I targeted them. My portfolio is children services. Therefore, I look for people with families and young children. I also look for people who have had visible disabilities. Thinking about one family I spoke to summed it up quite well. It was an elderly lady in a wheelchair who I wasn't able to talk to because she wasn't able to talk to me very well. She had a carer with her. She had a carer's partner and they had quite a group of children. They did say, I introduce myself and ask them to use the parker. They told me that actually not be able to use that gate that's close at the moment. They did actually cause them some issues. They said it took me a few more minutes to get into the park today. Sometimes we like to drive through. When they reflected, they said, however, it's a nicer environment now we're in it. They felt that they could get around with the wheelchair better. They felt that the children, they didn't have to have them to supply control. They could allow them a bit more space because it weren't so many cars. That's what I was getting from a lot of people. The bit about constitutions and referendums and voting and things. It's quite a constitution. A consultation is something which you listen to people's views. It's not a referendum. A referendum has to have specific rules and regulations in place. You have to ensure that you know in advance of it who is going to be allowed to vote. You need to know to define what you're voting on. You have to make sure that people can only vote once. It has to be done in a certain time frame. With a consultation, you're asking for people's opinions. We do that in planning all the time in a council. When you have a planning meeting, it could be for a huge building or a single house or a change or something. We ask people to consult on that and we listen to them. It's never, never a number of people voting one. In fact, we tell people as a council, I advise people. The point is getting a petition. What you need to do is say things which affect people's decisions. So what I've done is I've looked at that. I also thank people for, I spent a bit of time looking at the history of Paul Bark. Denated with her by law wind born in the late 1800s. We've been with the Prince of Wales in 1890. Sorry, 1890. Folks moored a vehicle in the UK. In 1894 and 1895, imported Ben's Velo 2 horsepower. 12 miles an hour. That's four years after the park was opened. So the person who, Lord wind born, who donated the park, wasn't thinking about it for motor traffic. It was at the time, by the way, a conservatory MP, I should just say, although he did change and become a Liberal Democrat in 1904. He did make some bad decisions as well, I should hate him as well. So on balance, and I have listened to all sides, I would say, I think we need to make the decision here today. I don't see any point in taking it to a full council. All Councillors have had opportunity here, and that's a screw to need to talk. And on my balance, I think that we should keep them getting closed. Thank you very much, Councillor Burton. Can I ask any other cabinet members wishing to speak? Councillor HANA. Thank you very much. Just to explain to people online, a member of the public has taken issue with a phrase that was used by the cabinets by a cabinet member. During the debate, I just want to remind you that this is a meeting that's held in public, so I won't be taking any more interruptions. Councillor COX, did you want to clarify anything at all? I don't believe I was quoting you. I was just interpreting what you said, and so that's the way I would do it. Excuse me. Councillor interjecting. No, I'm afraid the time has gone for statements, but thank you. So we heard the statements at the beginning, and I'm sure that cabinet members present do have that statement on file. So if they would like to refer to it, then they have an opportunity to during the summing up. But I'm afraid we're not going to go back and listen to further statements. And also just imagine they are published online as well. So if anyone else would like to go and have a look, they are there. Any other cabinet members wishing to speak? Councillor HANNAH. Thank you, Deputy Leader. Can I say that I don't have a prepared speech? I have been reading the paper in detail. I've been reading the various statements in detail. I've been observing the comments on Facebook, on the Echo. I am someone who's used the park regularly when I lived in Cool and visited again because of the issue that's been raised. And the first thing I want to say is simply a thank you and appreciation to all of the residents who have expressed view through the consultation. Some of them have been a motive, but I can understand that there are emotions involved. So there's nothing wrong with that. But the nature of the consultation, as has been said, is in order to tease out issues. And whilst we have very professional officers who write reports and to consider pros and cons of different lines of action, the whole purpose of any council consultation is the fact that there will be residents who actually use facilities who have gotten their own experience of those facilities, and who've got their own views and consultation enables those views to be expressed. As has been said, it's not a vote. Numbers are of interest, but they're not binding and decisive. And there's also a question as to how views should be.