Notice of Overview and Scrutiny Board
Date: Monday, 1 March 2021 at 2.00 pm
Venue: Virtual Meeting
Membership:
Chairman: Cllr S Bartlett
Vice Chairman: Cllr T O'Neill
Cllr L Allison Cllr M Earl Cllr D Kelsey Cllr D Borthwick Cllr J Edwards Cllr C Rigby Cllr M Cox Cllr D Farr Cllr V Slade Cllr L Dedman Cllr L Fear Cllr B Dion Cllr M Howell
All Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Board are summoned to attend this meeting to consider the items of business set out on the agenda below.
The press and public are welcome to view the live stream of this meeting at the following link: https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=4312
If you would like any further information on the items to be considered at the meeting please contact: Claire Johnston - 01202 123663 or email [email protected]
Press enquiries should be directed to the Press Office: by email at [email protected]
This notice and all the papers mentioned within it are available at democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk
GRAHAM FARRANT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
on the Mod.gov app Mod.gov on the
Available online and online Available 19 February 2021
BCP Council Offices, Town Hall, Bourne Avenue, Bournemouth BH2 6DY
AGENDA
Items to be considered while the meeting is open to the public
1. Apologies To receive any apologies for absence from Members.
2. Substitute Members To receive information on any changes in the membership of the Committee.
Note – When a member of a Committee is unable to attend a meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee, the relevant Political Group Leader (or their nominated representative) may, by notice to the Monitoring Officer (or their nominated representative) prior to the meeting, appoint a substitute member from within the same Political Group. The contact details on the front of this agenda should be used for notifications.
3. Declarations of Interests Councillors are requested to declare any interests on items included in this agenda. Please refer to the workflow on the preceding page for guidance. Declarations received will be reported at the meeting.
4. Confirmation of Minutes 5 - 22 To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on 1 February 2021.
5. Public Speaking To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution, which is available to view at the following link: https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=15 1&Info=1&bcr=1 The deadline for the submission of a public question is 4 clear working days before the meeting. The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday the working day before the meeting. The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.
6. Call-in of Decision - Whitecliff Road ETRO 23 - 162 The Board is asked to review and scrutinise the decision of the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability in relation to the Whitecliff Road ETRO, following the receipt of a valid call-in request from the pre-requisite number of councillors.
In accordance with the Constitution, the Board must determine whether or not to offer any advice in relation to the decision. If advice is offered, Cabinet will be required to reconsider the decision and consider any advice offered.
7. Scrutiny of Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Portion 163 - 184 Cabinet Report To consider the Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Portion report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 10 March.
The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the report and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.
Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning
The Cabinet report is circulated with the agenda for consideration by the O&S Board.
8. Forward Plan 185 - 210 To consider and amend the Board’s Forward Plan as appropriate and to consider the published Cabinet Forward Plan.
9. Future Meeting Dates 2020/21 and 21/22 To note the following meeting dates and locations for the 2020/21 municipal year: 1 April 2021
To note the following meeting dates and locations for the 2021/22 municipal year: 17 May 2021 14 June 2021 19 July 2021 23 August 2021 20 September 2021 18 October 2021 15 November 2021 6 December 2021 5 January 2022 31 January 2022 28 February 2022 4 April 2022 All meetings will be held via video conferencing until further notice.
No other items of business can be considered unless the Chairman decides the matter is urgent for reasons that must be specified and recorded in the Minutes.
Agenda Item 4 – 1 –
BOURNEMOUTH, CHRISTCHURCH AND POOLE COUNCIL
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD
Minutes of the Meeting held on 01 February 2021 at 2.00 pm
Present:- Cllr S Bartlett – Chairman Cllr T O'Neill – Vice-Chairman
Present: Cllr L Allison, Cllr D Borthwick, Cllr D Brown, Cllr M Cox, Cllr L Dedman, Cllr B Dion, Cllr J Edwards, Cllr D Farr, Cllr L Fear, Cllr A Filer, Cllr M Howell, Cllr C Rigby and Cllr V Slade
Also in Cllr R Burton attendance: Cllr G Farquhar
135. Apologies
Apologies were received from Cllrs M Earl and D Kelsey
136. Substitute Members
Cllr D Brown substituted for Cllr M Earl and Cllr A Filer Substituted for Cllr D Kelsey
137. Declarations of Interests
There were no declarations of interest
138. Confirmation of Minutes
The Minutes of the meetings held on 4 January 2021 were agreed as a correct record.
139. Action Sheet
The Board’s latest action sheet was noted following an update from the Chairman.
140. Public Speaking
There were no public statements, questions or petitions submitted for this meeting.
141. Budget Scrutiny 2020/21
The Leader of the Council, the Portfolio Holder for Housing and the Portfolio Holder for Covid Resilience, Schools and Skills presented a series of reports, copies of which had been circulated to each Member and copies of which appear as Appendices 'A-C' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.
5 – 2 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
Budget and MTFP
A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:
A Board Member queried the additional £13M to be added to the adult social care budget, particularly when the majority of it was to be spend on the minimum wage increase? He further queried why the decision had been made to not take advantage of the option of a precept increase this year as allowed by the Government and if it would be pursued as an option for next year. The Leader of the Council stated that he would ask the S151 Officer to cover the detail relating to the additional £13M before explaining that it had been identified that the council, helped by the transformation programme, had no need to increase the adult social care precept this financial year. He added that whilst there was the opportunity to increase the precept by a full 3% next year, this was not the ambition it was hoped that this would not be necessary and would therefore allow residents to be better off for it. The S151 Officer highlighted that Section 42 of the report set out the reasons for why £13m extra investment was needed for adult social care. A Board Member agreed with the importance of keeping money in the pockets of residents, but it did appear to him that this meant the council was borrowing more and also selling off more of its assets. He stated that it was important that vital services were funded, and it seemed odd that the Leader was not taking advantage of the offer from central government to increase the adult social care precept. The Leader of the Council highlighted that the council retained the option to take advantage of this allowance in 2022/23, but aspired to not have to do this in full unless absolutely necessary. He added that 41% of conservative-led councils were taking advantage of precept offer, as 82% of labour-led councils, which was proof that BCP Council were being more efficient and £44M of these efficiencies were from the transformation plan. A Board Member commented that the use of flexible capital receipts needed to be done responsibly and felt that the current method was “on steroids” and queried why utilising capital receipts had been “turbo charged”? The Leader disagreed with this analogy and indeed the comments raised. He added that the Council should be retaining assets and not selling them selling off, what was being done was allowing the Council to maximise offers from the government. The S151 Officer referred to figure 11 and section 65 of report, which set out the capital receipts/assets which had been used for this budget and stated that the majority of the assets listed were now sold subject to planning permission being granted, at which point the receipts would be provided. A Board Member commented that he saw “huge gaps” between this budget and the reset paper that had been referred to and that it didn’t seem to cover the investment gains or income from community mutual bonds that had been discussed in the reset paper. He commented that the budget seemed to take the principles that the
6 – 3 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
previous administration had set out and built on it. He added that it appeared that there would be a high level of borrowing to funs the expenditure. The S151 Officer highlighted that councils were not permitted to borrow in order to finance expenditure and this budget was not doing so, what the council was allowed to do was use receipts from disposed assets to finance transformation expenditure, to do this the council had to submit various returns to the government as detailed within the transformation section of this report. The Leader of the Council explained that community mutual bonds were not an MTFP item, but had been included as part of the treasury management reports that had been through the Audit and Governance Committee. He further detailed that this budget funded the priorities that had been set out by the administration. The S151 Officer directed the Board to S180 of the report, which made the commitment to exploring the use of community bonds in the future to support the council’s climate change and ecological emergency. A Board Member commented that she felt that other precepts paid as part of council tax needed to be explained for residents’ benefit. The Leader of the Council explained that as well as the basic Council tax, there was also a precept levied by the police and fire authorities, which were separate to council tax, as were the precepts for the charter trustees and town/parish council. Further to this point, the S151 Officer highlighted that all precepts would be detailed in the final report to Council as not all precepts had been set at the time of the publication of this report. The Chairman of the Children and Young People’s O&S Committee was invited to comment on aspects of the budget that related to Children’s Services and he stated that the baseline budget for children’s services appeared to be adequate and was well monitored. He added that there were some good news stories, particularly the £10m capital sufficiency for school places. He queried where the new monies were coming from and what they would be spent on? The Leader of the Council explained that historically there had been a problem in the high needs block due to insufficient places “in area”, meaning that high cost placements were often needed. He detailed that the £10m fund would unlock extra places and bring long term savings and ultimately, better outcomes for children. He commented that children were struggling at present due to the pandemic, and there was a responsibility to take action to remedy – therefore £1m would be coming from general fund to invest in priority areas and £10m from prudential borrowing. Match funding from DfE needed to be identified. A Board Member queried as to when the big plan had been finalised and how much additional money had gone into the budget as a result of plan? He also queried figures in relation to transformation, in particular, employment staff cuts and whether or not the administration was comfortable that the quoted figure will be achieved? He also questioned if the grant from Homes England that would provide substantial funding for the Turlin Moor Housing Development had been lost and, if not, if it was worth investing that money? He further queried where the funding for the build costs
7 – 4 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
money would be coming from? The Leader of the Council explained that £2.25M was going into the big plan, and that it would create an opportunity to create a world class city region through investment. He added that he disagreed with the Board Member’s comments made about transformation and that it was not in trouble as had been suggested. Turlin Moor consultation was vital and would be best executed if undertaken on a face-to-face basis, which was the plan. He added that there was a desire to carry on with a planning application at the appropriate time. The S151 Officer reminded Board Members that it was a specific responsibility and indeed legal requirement of his role to ensure that budgets were legal and further referring to the appendices to demonstrate that this was the case, also explaining that the Council and its predecessors had a strong track record of financial management. This budget was seeking to retain unearmarked reserves at £15.4m, increasing unearmarked resiliency reserves from £10m to £25m and increasing its contingencies from £1.2M to £3.6M. A Board Member stated that he welcomed extra investment in regeneration and queried the total sum of extra funding from big plan and also whether the cost of replacing and refurbishing the Turlin Moor playing fields were included in the budget. The Leader of the Council explained that difficult to answer first question as the big plan was inclusive of everything. He added that there was no detail in the big plan relating to specifically to playing fields. The Chairman stated that he felt it to be regrettable to have lost £3.8M of grant funding for the Turlin Moor development project and queried whether an extension could be sought? He also queried why the surveying fees had exceeded what was originally budgeted for by three times? The Leader of the council explained that he had taken part in a detailed conversation with Homes England and felt content that the big plan will provide an avenue to reapply for a further grant at the appropriate time. He added that he felt it to be fundamental to the scheme’s success that local people had the proper opportunity to engage with through proper consultation at an early stage. A Board Member highlighted that the Unity Alliance Administration did not cancel its priorities during the Covid-19 outbreak and that the administration had merely paused them to focus on the delivery of essential services. He queried the level of investment in service, referring to appendix 2b, particularly relating to adult social care and environment and community? He also queried the Council Tax average increase figure, stating that “the devil was in the detail”, and that across a two-year window the figures looked less flattering. The Leader of the Council explained that he would not be bringing forward a 7% increase to council tax increase next year as suggested and that he believed money should be kept in peoples’ pockets. The Council would be working efficiently and that’s where savings would be made to ensure that such increases to rates would not be required. A Board Member queried if the figures in the report were correct? The Leader of the Council explained that it was prudent to keep the 8 – 5 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
option of utilising a 3% precept in the following financial year in play, but had not aspiration to use this as he felt confident that through correct financial management, this would not be necessary. The S151 Officer added that he did not feel comfortable with the use of the word “cuts” when referring to appendix 2b and considered this to be inappropriate as it would send out the wrong message. A Board Member queried if the Leader was confident that this budget was deliverable. The Leader of the Council confirmed that he was completely confident and was pleased that he and his team had been able to include some bold and well thought out ideas, whilst setting out a series of strong priorities. A Board Member stated that she was disappointed at some of the comments made during the discussion and felt it prudent to highlight some key facts, in particular; that it was prudent to pause funding on long term strategies due to uncertainty from pandemic and that she felt there had been some misrepresentations during the discussion. She added that the MTFP was a three-year plan, that needed to set out income and expenditure over the course of this period. She queried what would be cut from budget over the next year? The Leader of the Council disagreed with comments made by the board member and stated that the MTFP needed to be flexible and was constantly reviewed throughout the year and that he had ambitions to keep money in council taxpayer’s pockets. A Board Member queried the planning assumptions that had been detailed and what would the size of the deficit be the option to take the precept increase if not taken. The S151 Officer reminded Board Members that this budget set the level of council tax for 2021/22 only and that whilst it was prudent to forward plan, assumptions could change over time and the budget was continually monitored as a result, meaning that as the time came to put forward the 2022/23 budget the figures would be updated accordingly and any requirements to increase council tax or raise precepts would be considered at this point. He added that Council Tax base calculation was done annually, every January, including working out the impact on cost of the Local Council Tax Support Scheme (LCTSS). He also referred to Section A of Appendix 3b, which identified resiliency reserves that would receive extra investment. A Board Member queried the children’s covid recovery fund and sought clarity as to how it would be used and if there could be a guarantee that children’s centres and youth clubs would be protected in this budget? She further queried if it was appropriate to be investing in events that would bring people together, which did not seem logical? Finally, she queried if there was going to be an impact on the pricing for care placements? The Leader of the Council explained that whilst the majority of schools within the area were no longer the direct responsibility of the council in terms of their day to day operation, all children living within the conurbation were and this meant that they would benefit from the covid recovery fund, particularly those who had been significantly disadvantaged by the pandemic and listed a number of ways that the fund could be spent. He added that children’s centres and youth clubs would be 9 – 6 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
protected. He explained that the council had a world-class resort and that it was wise to promote it with a bounce-back festival. The S151 Officer drew Board Members’ attention to Section 42 of report, which centred around investment into ASC and the contingency funds that would be drawn upon if necessary from the government’s allocated grant The Chairman queried costs relating to redundancy as a result of the transformation programme and queried the number of staff that this could affect. The Leader of the Council detailed that he was expecting costs to increase over time and that at present there could be somewhere in the region of 600 staff being made redundant although it would be about bringing the right savings going forward and this process would involve the council’s Strategic Implementation Partner. The Chairman queried investment restrictions as detailed in Section 181 of the report and whether or not this had any impact on existing schemes such as the Winter Gardens site? The Leader of the council explained that these restrictions were for investment, but did not cover regeneration projects, which could be funded by PWLB borrowing. In the future, the council would be looking at long term property investment. The Chairman sought additional clarification on what was meant by “work to enable communities take more responsibilities for their needs” on page 52, Section 63 of the report? The Leader of the Council explained that this meant there was a desire to empower communities to be able to do more in their area. The Chairman queried that a significant sum of money would be raised by fees and charges, would be increased or from new fees? The Leader of the Council explained that these would be recoveries from the pandemic. A Board Member queried why the unallocated reserves were so low and why the opportunity hadn’t been taken to increase them? He further queried why the Turlin Moor consultations had not been undertaken as planned? He also queried the purpose of the proposed Encampments Manager i.e. what role they would undertake? The Leader of the Council explained that the Encampments Manager was already funded from last year’s budget. In respect of the Turlin Moor development he explained that there was a great need to listen to ward councillors and planned to undertake the already mentioned consultation on face to face basis. A Board Member commented that he felt it strange that this council was not taking advantage of the ASC precept option that was open to it. The Leader of the Council stated that he had no intention to take advantage of people and had subsequently put forward a strong budget that made best use of resources. A Board Member queried the funding surrounding transformation and indeed the saving of the outlined £44M? The Leader of the Council explained that the council could invest in services through transformation savings.
10 – 7 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
A Board Member queried if the Council had the people power to meet the carbon neutral target by 2030? The Leader of the Council highlighted that he remained remains fully committed to this target, plus there was also the opportunity to take advantage of community bonds to assist with this objective. A Board Member referred to Section 37 of the report and queried why there was a reduction in earmarked reserves by March 2022 detailed in appendix 3. The Leader of the Council explained that he had been clear that an extra £25m was going into reserves this upcoming financial year. He added that earmarked reserves being referred to, would be claimed against what was already due to be spent and explained that reserves were fluid. The S151 Officer referred to Appendix 3b and set out the current position and the forecast for March 2022, plus movements. A Board Member queried if match funding for certain projects would be included within the budget, in particular referring to the Tuckton Bridge Project? The S151 Officer explained that there was no consistent principle applied in relation to match funding as it would often depend on the grant conditions as to what approach was taken. He would look into the arrangements for the named project and advise the Board Member offline. A Board Member advised that she was aware of how long it took to put a budget together and queried if the departure of one of the corporate directors would be reflected in any of the specifics when investing in the planning team as this was a significant area within the council that needed fundamental changes. The Leader of the Council advised that this was a big budget in terms of regeneration plus extra funding was also being committed to investing into the planning teams, this would allow the council to properly consider the organisational structure. At the invitation of the Chairman, a non-Board Member raised a query in relation to the long overdue proposals for disabled access at Pokesdown Station, in particular where in the budget was this detailed? The Leader of the Council explained that he and his Cabinet Team were absolutely committed to the regeneration of Boscombe, including the pursuit of disability access at Pokesdown Station, however there was due process to be followed and at this nothing had gone through the formal process to date and as such there was no funding specifically earmarked for this project. He added that what the budget did include was the futures fund, which could assist with financing any proposals that came forward and reassured Members that he was committed to seeing the appropriate access come to fruition. The Non-Board Member queried if any formal process had been started as he was conscious that the funding from South Western Railways was time limited and without the Council’s commitment could be lost easily and pressed to obtain commitment from the Leader. The Leader of the Council explained that the Council was not in a position to commit to anything at this point on this matter as doing so would circumvent due process.
11 – 8 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
The Chairman noted that the investment programme referred to within the budget did not include investment in Bournemouth Development Company (BDC) projects and queried how members would be able to see what the investments were and how this was reflected in the capital investment programme within the budget? The S151 Officer explained that as a general rule, any investments made by BDC were not included as part of the budget, however, if the council chose to invest in a BDC project, this would be included in the capital investment programme.
HRA Budget Setting
A Board Member queried how much money had been put aside to resolve issues with unsafe cladding? The Portfolio Holder for Housing explained that no further funding had been put aside in addition to what had already agreed for the recladding of Sterte Court in Poole. He added that the Council had also made a decision to not recharge leaseholders for the recladding. It was expected that the Government would be reimbursing the Council for the majority of expenditure encountered in relation to this project.
DSG and Early Years Formulae
Before this item was discussed the Portfolio Holder for Covid Resilience, Schools and Skills responded to an earlier question relating to match funding from the Department for Education (DfE) raised during the budget item by the Chairman of the Children and Young People’s O&S Committee. She explained that negotiations with the DfE were ongoing in relation to match funding arrangements and the matter was not yet concluded so would provide an update once this was available.
No comments or queries were raised in relation to this item.
The Chairman thanked Members for their contributions in the discussions for the three items discussed so far. He added that there appeared to be no recommendations to change the budget at this point, although this would not stop an alternative budget from being put forward to Council at its Meeting on 23 February 2021.
142. Scrutiny of the Corporate Strategy Delivery Plans Refresh 2021/22
The Leader of the Council presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'D' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.
12 – 9 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:
The Chairman referred to Page 259 of the report, and raised a query relating to connectivity improvements and if big changes and improvements could be expected? The Leader of the Council explained that there was a big opportunity to do something at scale and it would be necessary for the Council to bring forward some large-scale infrastructure projects. He explained that he believed the futures fund would bring forward significant interest and investment and that he hoped to entice government and other partners into working with the Council to assist with the delivery of such projects. The Chairman asked the leader to define what was meant by the creation of an iconic cityscape and queried if residents would want this? The Leader of the Council explained that whilst none of the three towns within the conurbation were cities, the scale of the conurbation could be compared with cities such as Bristol or Brighton and Hove and as such the Council needed to attract business and funding to the area in order for it to flourish. The Chairman stated that there had been some significant changes to the corporate delivery plan and that he would like to see the baseline of the corporate plan retained. The Leader of the Council explained that he agreed with the comments that had been made and advised that he felt this would be useful. A Board Member queried how other industries that had not been listed in the big plan could present development opportunities that would fit into the priorities? He also queried how a key area such as Tourism, for example, could impact on how the council utilised its infrastructure? The Leader of the Council explained that there were clearly some core industries, but there were others that could emerge from the smart cities programme and the council needed to understand and unlock the potential of such industries and what they can bring to the area. He added that through the futures fund the council could pump-prime different schemes if required. He further explained that tourism was a huge business for the conurbation and that the council promoted itself as a destination for services too. A Board Member stated that there seemed to be a lack of consultation in relation to the production of this document, particularly with the public. She queried what the innovative projects that were referred to were? She added that whilst she agreed with the principle of revising the delivery plan as things did often change, she was disappointed that there did not appear to be any document explaining the difference between the existing plan and the proposed plan. The Leader of the Council explained that this was a big ambitions plan that set out a direction of travel and that the consultation would follow. He did sympathise with the point raised in relation to changes made and agreed that this could be done. A Board Member suggested that the changes need to be displayed in an appropriate manner and that displaying tracked changes would not suffice. She added that many of the items included as part of this
13 – 10 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
plan and the futures fund did not appear to be new and that they had been lifted from the previous administration. A Board Member highlighted that he did not see any measurable outcomes from this document and he didn’t see any benefit from taking it forward. The Leader of the Council expressed his disappointment at the past few comments received and stated that he was looking forward to being in a position of putting the plan into action.
The meeting ended at 5.17 pm CHAIRMAN
14 – 1 –
BOURNEMOUTH, CHRISTCHURCH AND POOLE COUNCIL
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD
Minutes of the Meeting held on 01 February 2021 at 6.00 pm
Present:- Cllr S Bartlett – Chairman Cllr T O'Neill – Vice-Chairman
Present: Cllr L Allison, Cllr D Borthwick, Cllr M Cox, Cllr L Dedman, Cllr B Dion, Cllr M Earl, Cllr J Edwards, Cllr D Farr, Cllr L Fear, Cllr D Kelsey, Cllr C Rigby, Cllr V Slade and Cllr Dr F Rice (In place of Cllr M Howell)
Also in Councillor Mark Anderson attendance: Councillor Philip Broadhead Councillor Nigel Brooks
143. Apologies
Apologies were received from Cllr M Howell
144. Substitute Members
Cllr F Rice Substituted for Cllr M Howell
145. Declarations of Interests
There were no declarations of interest received.
146. Public Speaking
There were no public questions, statements or petitions.
147. Cabinet Member Report - Environment, Cleansing and Waste
The Chairman advised the Board that this was the second Cabinet Member report which was being considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Board. A copy of the report had been circulated to the Board members and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Chairman advised the Board that the purpose of the item was to help generate ideas for the future and consider those issues which the Overview and Scrutiny Board would want to get involved in or consider further.
The Portfolio Holder for Environment, Cleansing and Waste outlined the key points from the Portfolio, the future projects which were coming forward and areas where the Overview and Scrutiny Board may become involved and add value. The Portfolio Holder also provided a response to the questions which had been submitted by other Councillors in advance of the meeting a copy of the questions and responses had been circulated to the
15 – 2 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
Board members and a copy of which appears as Appendix ‘B’ to these minutes in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised in the subsequent discussion including:
The provision of bins and whether there was an intention to increase or reduce the number of bins and what information did the Council have on the numbers, types and locations of bins. It was noted that a full review of the provision of bins was needed. Whilst the Council was broadly aware of the location of bins because there was a cleansing schedule there were over 3200 bins across the conurbation. In some areas there may be a need to remove bins and declutter the area but in others there may be a need to increase the number of bins but that this would need to be part of a significant piece of work. Whether street cleansing was taking place at weekends and whether there was a specific schedule in place which covered the minor roads. It was noted that the street cleansing schedule was monitored closely and took into factors such as storms and whether impacts. The teams worked at different times throughout the day to attempt to mitigate various impacting factors such as parked cars. Where possible the team would try to get parked cars removed. Teams also coordinated to try to undertake other works during the same time, such as line painting. There were schedules in place for Bournemouth and Poole but Christchurch didn’t previously have a schedule and these were being reviewed. A Councillor asked about tying the street cleansing programme in with rubbish collection but it was explained that both areas operated very differently, the rubbish collection by necessity had to cover a large number of bins and was done on a repetitive basis but street cleansing had to react to a number of different factors at different times of year and different areas would have different requirements depending on the environment. In response to a suggestion regarding having bin crews monitoring areas for street cleansing the Board was advised that this was a possibility but would be difficult due to the speed of bin collections and difficult for the person in the cab as they were responsible for health and safety. In response to an enquiry the Portfolio Holder advised that he would check and confirm the dates for the all member briefing sessions he was scheduling for a number of areas within his portfolio. In response to one of the questions previously submitted the Portfolio Holder was able to confirm that temporary toilets would be put in place at the beach around the East Cliff for the summer season. In response to a question regarding the large areas of the seafront set aside for storage and what was being done with these as they seemed to increase in size. The Portfolio Holder advised that he was meeting with the Director of Destination and Culture Chair and would raise this issue and provide a response. On the same issue a Councillor asked if work could be undertaken to make the storage compounds look more attractive. The Portfolio Holder agreed to also feedback on this In response to a question regarding the increase in demand for cardboard products the Board was advised that anything would have to go through the existing contracts. 16 – 3 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
The Portfolio Holder explained to the Board about the different types of surveys which were undertaken to measure various aspects of highway conditions, the different maintenance process and inspection processes over various different types of roads. The Portfolio Holder also outlined the differing options for resurfacing roads. In response to an enquiry by a Board member it was explained that maintenance on dropped kerbs would be included with this Portfolio but the installation was a matter for the Transport Portfolio, although it was believed that there was currently a long waiting list. In response to an enquiry about sewage getting into the sea and to waterways the Board was advised that this was not a regulatory task for the council and it therefore could not enforce issues from sewage works. However under planning rules the Council could ensure that more permeable surfaces were introduce which should help reduce the amount of waste water. The Portfolio Holder had written to all local MPs on this issue to urge them to support the inland waterways bill which was being introduced. This was a problem for Poole Bay, Christchurch Harbour and also the River Stour. Wessex Water had storm drains which fed into the sea. The AI in Poole Harbour could be useful in the long term in providing a live feed which would show a spike in E.coli and indicate where it came from. This was however probably approximately 18 months away. The Portfolio Holder thanked Councillor Hadley and Councillor Miles for raising these issues and advised that this was something he was very much pushing on at present. A Councillor commented on the previous Flood Committee held in Bournemouth and that this was a useful forum for raising these particular types of issues as it also included external partners. In response to a question regarding vehicle traffic using Poole Park during rush hour the Portfolio Holder advised that he was happy to take on Board the opinion of the local ward Councillor who were happy with the situation and he supported their decision. A Board member enquired about increasing the number of grass meadow patches and the Portfolio Holder advised that this would form part of a biodiversity paper which will be coming would be coming forward in the next few months. The Portfolio Holder advised that the team was looking into issues concerning surface water flooding in low lying suburban areas, particular Creekmoor. In response to an enquiry about the use of unrecyclable plastic waste in resurfacing roads and concerns about the effect of this, particularly on devaluing plastic and discouraging the use of recyclable plastics but more importantly introducing a new source of microplastics. The Portfolio Holder advised that these were being used in the manufacture of a road surface and were products which were otherwise unrecyclable. A Councillor commented that fly tipping had increased since tips closed at the beginning of the pandemic and it didn’t appear to have reduced. Over 100 bags of waste had been dumped in Queens Park. It was noted that planning was underway on this issue for the summer and a fly tipping policy was being set up. Officers were also working through some fairly detailed plans to deal with the expected influx of tourists from easter onwards. 17 – 4 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
In relation to the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space and the requirement to provide 15,000 homes a Councillor asked if there was an option for part of Queens Park to be rewilded. The Portfolio Holder advised that the deputy Leader was meeting on this tomorrow but that he was not in favour of this option as income from golf helped to fund the park. A Councillor commented that they were extremely worried about the provision of neighbourhood play parks when they would only be funded through the Community Infrastructure Levy, particularly if this was limited. Older children were particularly poorly provided for in this regard. The Portfolio Holder advised that there was an aim to make parks revenue neutral and was trying to establish a parks foundation which could be used to fund the development of play parks. However, it was suggested that this was limited, and Councillors asked if there were other strategic means of dealing with informal play.
The Chairman asked the Portfolio Holder to give consideration to any areas that would be useful to put to O&S for any policy development, the Portfolio Holder initially suggested that O&S involvement would be welcome on a service plan on public toilets and he would take this away to consider any further issues. It was also suggested that an important current issue was ensuring the safety of refuse workers who were doing a fantastic job in sometimes challenging circumstances. The Chairman commented that it had been extremely interesting discussion and thanked the Portfolio Holder for his report and his responses to questions.
148. Scrutiny of High Streets Strategy Cabinet Report
The Chairman invited the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning to present the report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member and which appears as Appendix 'C' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Portfolio Holder introduced the item and asked the Lead Member for BCP Retail Strategy to provide further updates to the Board on the content of the paper. The Lead Member advised the Board that there was a Workshop held on 19 January, which provided an opportunity to share ideas, observations and thoughts on how to revive a high street. The Board were informed of the number and percentage of empty units across the three main town centres within BCP. It was noted that it was a difficult situation being faced by traders, but it was hoped that when lockdown was over there would be opportunities for high streets to bounce back. The Lead Member suggested that a kick start was needed to get confidence back into town centres and a number of different ideas were shared with the Board to help ensure that void spaces were occupied, help high streets recover and give confidence to landlords. The Chairman commented that it was great that we were being proactive on this by taking innovative steps and ideas and opened the item up to further discussion from Board members which included the following issues:
A Councillor commented that the link between transportation and high streets was important and that this needed to be included. In reference to the Workplace Parking Levy, introduced by Nottingham Council
18 – 5 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
which had generated £64m to invest into sustainable transport methods, the Councillor commented that it would be good to see BCP doing something similar with this piece of work. It was noted that the scheme had also attracted external funding. The Lead member noted that one of the issues with this was that the places most likely to survive the pandemic would be industrial estates and out of town retail parks. Furthermore, finance from car parking was baked into the forecast for BCP. However, there was a whole mix of things that the Council could be doing in this regard and this would come through in the retail strategy. The Portfolio Holder commented that making sure people could get around as part of an enjoyable experience. It was noted that of those living in Boscombe / Bournemouth town centres around half do not have access to a car and when seeking views of the area from young people a number said how easy it was to get around the local area using public transport. With reference to charity shops, a Councillor advised that the shop set up to contribute to the Mayor of Bournemouth’s charities in Boscombe town centre was taking £1800 per week and was looking to increase trading further, and showed that some retail premises were still doing well, even in these difficult times. Charity shops formed a key part of economic recoveries and may have a key place in bringing about thriving hight streets with a mix of provision. A Councillor queries the reason as to why the report from the Lead Member wasn’t appended to the Cabinet report as this would provide greater detail for members of the public and for the Board to have that information available. The Portfolio Holder explained that they were currently working on a number of different areas related to the high street, a number of areas on future of high streets and that this represented a statement of intent for ongoing work. There would be more encompassing workstreams going forward. Member seminars would be a good way to tease out issues and form ideas. It was noted that there were very few mentions of important district centres within the BCP area. There was a recognition that districts were different to major town centres and that this needed to be acknowledged in terms of future high streets. The Portfolio Holder advised that there were 17 recognised different high streets across the BCP conurbation. The Board was advised that lots of these areas were doing well because they were different to the town centre high streets, there was lots of work going on with regards to these areas. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that they wanted to work with as many different partners as possible across the sector whether that was through BIDs or through other means, such as traders associations and other groups in some of the smaller high streets, e.g. Ashley Cross, Broadstone. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that they were working with them to develop. A Councillor commented on paragraph 6 of the report which outlined information from the Centre for Cities, who referred to the general urban area as Bournemouth’ but which also included Poole and Christchurch and suggested it would be preferable if it could be referred to in terms of the three separate entities. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that this was the terminology used by the Centre for Cities, 19 – 6 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
which was why this was particular brought out in the report. However, he advised that he would raise this with them. The Portfolio Holder was asked whether all districts would be involved in the plan or if it would just be confined to Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch High Streets. He confirmed that they would not be going into districts tell them what to do but they would want to provide support which could help and enable. Districts were particularly important with more people working from home they were choosing to stay more local. It was also noted that many retail units were being replaced by service units in district centres. Although a number of district centres were thriving, such as Southbourne, where a number of retailers had identified with the characteristics of its catchment area and the area was prepared to support a number of independent retailers. Other district centres had their own issues to address which were unique to them and it was felt that that there would need to be individual solutions for different districts. A Councillor advised that work had taken place on this previously for Christchurch High Street back in 2003 which had generated some good ideas and suggestions which were not implemented and she advised that she would pass this on to the Lead Member for information and consideration. The report mentioned the R3 group, who were working with Health and Wellbeing Board to support a Dementia Friendly Town in Christchurch. The Lead Member advised that he would certainly take this into consideration. A Councillor commented on the diversity of high streets, which also included other places such as nightclubs and other large empty units such as banks and asked what the potential plans were for these areas. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that he was keen to get some design briefs. It was noted that there were plans coming forward on larger empty premises which would only utilise a section of the property. Investment in bricks and mortar - town centres and retail – big institution suffering enormously. Bigger units represented some of the more challenging issues to deal with and developers would need to be creative when coming forward with plans. This was particularly the case with regards to rental values for these types of premises which had plummeted. A Councillor commented that they were looking forward to seeing this develop and pleased that there was interest in it.
Councillors commented that they were keen to ensure member engagement at ward level, in particular with regards to the local district centres. The Portfolio Holder advised that the Lead Member would be leading on a district advisory group and he gave the Board members a commitment to an ongoing piece of work, which would be a massive priority going forward with a number of different streams coming through. He confirmed that they would certainly be involving other Councillors on the journey. Following further discussion particularly with regards to member engagement, it was:
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that the recommendation in the report be amended as follows:
20 – 7 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD 01 February 2021
Cabinet delegates authority to the Director of Development, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Economy and Strategic Planning, to work with partners and ward Councillors, to swiftly develop a strategy and action plan, enabling the delivery interventions that will support our high streets.
Voting: Nem Con
The Chairman thanked the Portfolio Holder and Lead Member and looked forward to things coming forward on this issue.
149. Forward Plan
The Chairman asked Board members if they had any comments on the proposed Forward Plan for the Board. A Councillor commented on the Call- in submitted with regards to the Cabinet Member decision on the ETRO for Keyhole Bridge. The Chairman advised that he had not yet been formally notified of the decision as the call-in period had not yet expired but once this had taken place he confirmed that he would advise members when it would be considered by the Board.
It was confirmed that the requested items on Tree Management and Road maintenance would remain on the Board’s Forward Plan.
RESOLVED: That the Forward Plan for the Overview and Scrutiny Board be noted.
150. Update from the Local Plan Working Group
The Chairman advised the Board that the Working Group had held an initial meeting and had agreed in principle that there was value in moving forward. The first formal meeting was set for 17 February. The Chairman outlined the key points from the scoping report, a copy of which had been circulated to the O&S Board members and a copy of which appears as Appendix D to these minutes in the Minute Book.
RESOLVED: That the scope and purpose of the working group as outlined in the report be agreed.
151. Future Meeting Dates 2020/21 and 21/22
The Board noted the dates for future meetings and agreed that the January meeting in 2022 should be held on Wednesday 5 January as the previously scheduled date, 3 January fell on a bank holiday.
The meeting ended at 8.54 pm CHAIRMAN
21 This page is intentionally left blank
22 Agenda Item 6
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD
Report subject Call-in of Decision - Whitecliff Road ETRO
Meeting date 1 March 2021
Status Public Report
Executive summary The Board is asked to review and scrutinise the decision of the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability in relation to the Whitecliff Road ETRO, following the receipt of a valid call-in request from the pre-requisite number of councillors. In accordance with the Constitution, the Board must determine whether or not to offer any advice in relation to the decision. If advice is offered, Cabinet will be required to reconsider the decision and consider any advice offered.
Recommendations It is RECOMMENDED that: the Overview and Scrutiny Board consider the reasons submitted in the request for call-in, review and scrutinise the decision of the Portfolio Holder against these reasons, and determine whether to offer any advice to Cabinet.
Reason for The Constitution prescribes the process for the call-in of decisions. recommendations It is for the Overview and Scrutiny Board to determine whether it wishes to offer any advice to the Cabinet.
Portfolio Holder: Not applicable
Corporate Director Graham Farrant (Chief Executive)
Report Authors Susan Zeiss (Service Director for Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer) Richard Jones (Head of Democratic Services)
Wards Parkstone; Poole Town;
Classification For Decision
Title:
23 Background 1. The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability made a decision under delegated authority in relation to Whitecliff Road ETRO. The Portfolio Holder’s proposed decision was first published on 15 January 2021, allowing a period five clear working days for representations before the final decision was made on 27 January 2021. Following the period for representations, the final decision was published on 28 January 2021. A copy of the final decision, the proposed decision (which was confirmed without modification) and other background papers is appended to this report. 2. Any decision which is not subject to urgency provision shall not come into force, and may not be implemented, until the expiry of five clear working days after the decision was made, recorded and published, pending call-in. The call-in period commenced on 28 January, closing on 4 February 2021.
Requirement for Valid Call-In 3. The procedure within the Constitution states that the Monitoring Officer will consider the Call-In request and confirm its validity or otherwise. A valid Call-In request must comply with the following: (a) Have the correct number of signatures (b) Give reasons for the Call-In. The reasons must set out the grounds upon which the Call-In is based with reference to Rule 10.2 and the evidence to support the grounds. Reasons must be legitimate and not designed to create an obstacle to or delay the proper transaction of business nor should they be vexatious, repetitive or improper in any other way.
Number of signatories (a) 4. In terms of the number of councillors who are required to make a request, the provisions in the Constitution provide that any three or more members of the Overview and Scrutiny Board, or alternatively 10 Councillors (who are not members of the Cabinet), may submit a Call-In notice, in writing, within the period specified, to the Monitoring Officer or their nominated representative. In this case 12 Councillors have been named as requesting the Call-In. The Monitoring Officer has therefore accepted the call-in notice as valid in respect of the number of signatures required.
Reasons for Call-In (b) 5. Procedure Rule 10 (Call-In) states that: Call-In applies to a decision of the Cabinet, the Leader, Portfolio Holder or an Officer that is a Key Decision and there are reasonable grounds that one of the following is applicable:- (a) The decision was not made in accordance with the principles of decision- making set out in Article 12 of this Constitution (b) The decision was neither published in accordance with the requirements for the Cabinet Forward Plan and not subject to the ‘general exception’ or ‘special urgency procedures’ set out in this Constitution (c) The decision is not in accordance with the Key Policy Framework or Budget.
24 6. The decision, which was a non-key decision, was made by the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability. 7. The question therefore is whether there are reasonable grounds that one of the three limbs of Procedure Rule 10, as set out above, apply. Neither (b) nor (c) apply, so the question is whether there are reasonable grounds that the decision was not made in accordance with the principles of decision-making set out in Article 12 of the Constitution. For ease of reference, these have been reproduced in full below. Article 12 – Decision Making 1.1 When the Council takes a decision it will do so in accordance with the following principles: (a) Be clear about what the Council wants to happen and how it will be achieved (b) Ensure that the decision and the decision-making process are lawful (c) Consider the Public Sector Equality Duty and its obligations under the Human Rights Act (d) Consult properly and take professional advice from Officers (e) Have due regard to appropriate national, strategic, local policy and guidance (f) Ensure the action is proportionate to what the Council wants to happen (g) Ensure the decisions are not unreasonably delayed (h) Explain what options were considered and give the reasons for the decision (i) Make the decision public unless there are good reasons for it not to be 8. The email notices of call-in from the respective councillors list the grounds and reasons for the call-in as follows. Continuous paragraph numbering has been maintained for ease of reference.
Article 12 - 1.1 (b) - Ensure that the decision and the decision-making process are lawful Reasons for Call-in 9. The decision sets out reasons why consultation responses should be given less weight and then says that the responses are being given equal weight. This is confusing and suggests that in reality the responses were discounted to some extent, otherwise there was no need to include these statements. 10. The decision claims that responses were skewed by pro-closure lobbying but fails to acknowledge pro-opening campaigning including by Cllr Stribley and Conservative Party members and former councillors Xena Dion and John Challinor including misleading claims that the road had already been reopened. 11. The decision states “Against this there is a much smaller cohort of older and less mobile people who used to enjoy a drive through the park and this opportunity is no longer available to them.” However, closure of the bridge has not prevented anybody from driving through the park as there are alternative routes via Twemlow Avenue, East Gate or the Kingland entrance. This would surely be a reason to conclude that continued closure has not denied this minority their pleasure.
25 12. The Portfolio Holder is mistaken in his explanation of motorised traffic flows. The very narrow bridge is two-way, and the challenge to people not in cars is the interplay with vehicles from behind in both directions, therefore in both Wards. Those using the park just as a cut through in the evening are likely to be outbound. 13. The decision states “Since the closure there has been increased conflict reported between cyclists and pedestrians. Parkstone Ward councillors have received direct reports of this from those involved. These are very credible as the speed of some cyclists entering the Park via Keyhole Bridge has noticeably increased” but no reliable evidence is supplied to back up the assertion of credibility or speed, particularly official reports. This is similar to dismissing the volume of prior near misses with cars or dissuasion from using the route on foot whilst open to traffic. 14. The decision is justified by its claimed failure to have promoted permanent modal shift and discounts increases in use due to the pandemic, but this is not appropriate as the closure was introduced to promote walking and cycling during the pandemic. The measure is plainly well used by people on foot and by bike, and no statistics have been provided to back up this claim, the measure was a direct response to the Ministerial challenge 27th May 2020, which states: This new funding is designed to help you use pop-up and temporary interventions to create an environment that is safe for both walking and cycling in your area. Active travel allows people to get around whilst maintaining social distance and will have an essential role to play in helping us avoid overcrowding on public transport systems as we begin to open up parts of our economy. We have a window of opportunity to act now to embed walking and cycling as part of new long-term commuting habits and reap the associated health, air quality and congestion benefits. 15. The argument about increased traffic levels on Parkstone Road fails to consider that during that experiment the traffic lights were not adjusted. It also ignores the proven phenomenon of traffic evaporation, as some people are encouraged to undertake their local journeys by alternative means rather than to sit in traffic. The Portfolio- holder is very selective in his choice of evidence, and this argument flies in the face of his ambitions under Transforming Travel. He also claims the impact of a non- Covid year, when we know that 2020 and 2021 will be significantly dominated by Covid, which was why the Conservative Government challenged us to implement these measures. The experiments were not undertaken for long enough to embed changes in habits, indeed the Government guidance is that it takes 6 months to rebalance the network. 16. The decision-making process has been opaque, it appears that the outcome was prejudged and the process manipulated to attempt to fit that desired outcome despite the evidence. This does not comply with the Nolan principles. 17. The scheme was advertised to be consulted from August until at least 21st February 2021 (and up to 18 months). No rationale was given as to why it was felt necessary to withdraw the scheme early, and at a time when the Covid-19 rates in the BCP area were amongst the highest in the country, and the area was in lockdown, with local outdoor exercise recommended.
26 Article 12 – 1.1 (c) - Consider the Public Sector Equality Duty and its obligations under the Human Rights Act Reasons for Call-in 18. The Equality Assessment was negative for reopening but no valid evidence or proper reasoning given for overruling it. 19. The decision would appear to have been made without adequate consideration of the views of those who commented, and by virtue of the chance to respond being online only means that a significant number of people who may have had a view, have been disenfranchised from the process.
Article 12 – 1.1 (d) - Consult properly and take professional advice from Officers Reasons for call-in 20. The decision references consultation with ward councillors but the consultation the PH refers to took place in a meeting advertised to councillors as a briefing on Poole Park transportation issues, not the Keyhole Bridge Active Travel measure. Cllr Howell was never invited to comment. 21. The decision sets out reasons why Poole Town councillor responses should be given less weight and then says that the responses are being given equal weight. This is confusing and suggests that in reality the responses were discounted to some extent, otherwise there was no need to include these statements. 22. The justifications for giving the 3 Poole Town councillor responses less weight than the 2 Parkstone ones - the origin rather than the destination of vehicles and the fact nearby properties are in Parkstone ward – are illogical and ignore the fact that the bridge straddles the two wards, and is the most direct walking route to the harbour for the heavily populated Birds Hill area in Poole Town ward. 23. The PH has introduced additional evidence with spurious validity as a basis for undermining the interpretation and advice of officers re climate change and equalities. 24. In accordance with the guidance, the Experimental TRO was advertised to be in place for a 6 month consultation period. The portfolio holder has abbreviated this without adequate justification, and created confusion by changing the consultation email address before Christmas, and through the lack of clarity about the purpose of the third 5 day consultation period, around his decision. He seems to blame consultees rather than accepting responsibility for it. 25. The consultation has been badly handled, and in the final decision statement, the portfolio holder is openly critical of the professional advice given in papers his officers prepared, and that he himself signed off for the draft to go to consultation. He has overridden and not taken professional advice. 26. Further, the portfolio holder has only shared the 2016 statistics that he used as the basis for his decision at 16:53 tonight. The argument about economic loss from people stuck in traffic made no assessment of the likelihood that the individuals would have otherwise been involved in Economic activity, nor, as the report highlights, that the traffic lights would be adjusted for a permanent change, and that flows would adjust over time.
27 27. I do not believe the public consultation was carried out fairly and given enough weight, and the decision to revoke the ETRO had been made prior to sufficient consultation. The BCP Council Facebook page on 15/10/21 stated in a post: “KEYHOLE BRIDGE, POOLE PARK The closure at Keyhole Bridge in Poole Park was designed to reduce potential conflict between motorists and other users. However, since implementation Ward councillors have received reports from local residents of incidents between pedestrians and cyclists and also of motorcyclists taking advantage of the closure to considerably increase their speed, causing danger to pedestrians. Work is currently being carried out on the road surface in Poole Park just beyond the bridge and this is expected to be completed during the first week in November. Keyhole Bridge will reopen to motorised traffic to coincide with the completion of that work.” Ref: https://www.facebook.com/MyBCPCouncil/posts/10157264422380124 28. This gave a link to a news item on the BCP Council Website which has since been removed. 29. This message was posted 9 days after the announcement of Cllr Greene as the portfolio holder. Ref https://www.facebook.com/MyBCPCouncil/posts/10157245346655124 30. More tellingly the announcement was also made 8 days before summary report which was attached to the appendix to the portfolio holders decision. Which was generated on 23/10/2020. 31. Whilst I respect that the consultation may be disregarded as it is not a referendum I do not believe that the consultation was properly carried out or considered, and that the portfolio holder decision is political, was made prior to any consideration or consultation, and the decision paper was written in order to support a pre- determined decision. 32. Therefore the explanation given within the portfolio holders decision cannot be accepted as a true account and the reasons for making the decision cannot be accepted as a reason for the decision. 33. The decision would appear to have been made without adequate consideration of the views of those who commented, and by virtue of the chance to respond being online only means that a significant number of people who may have had a view, have been disenfranchised from the process. 34. In a question I submitted at the Council meeting on the 20th November, which was deferred to the 5th December I raised the forthcoming 6 month review of the ETRO schemes, and suggested that the reinstatement of the Transport Advisory Group, maybe with a change of balance to reflect the Council as it was then, was the best way to address the issue, enabling members of the public to share their views and have their points (on both sides) put to members in an open transparent way – albeit that any recommendation would ultimately have to go to Portfolio Holder or Cabinet for a final decision. There were two meetings of TAG in the Corporate Diary that were close to the 6 month anniversary – January 20th and March 24th. Any changes to membership could have gone through Council on the 5th January. 35. In view of the above I would ask that this item is re-considered at a meeting, held in the public domain and enabling representations to be made, maybe at a revived Transport Advisory Group on the 24th March 2021. This is the least that we should
28 do as, unlike in the first instance where there were tight deadlines imposed by Government on the funding, there is more than enough time to deal with the issue in a proper, open, and more democratic way.
Article 12 – 1.1 (e) - Have due regard to appropriate national, strategic, local policy and guidance Reasons for call-in 36. This measure was introduced under the Conservative Government direction about promoting active travel and local exercise as part of the Covid response, and as quoted above to embed new commuting habits. The Government strategy “Gear Change”, the South East Dorset Local Transport Plans, and the Transforming Travel initiatives all aim to promote modal shift towards active means, which this closure supports. 37. By introducing selective air quality and congestion statistics and costs into his calculations, the PH has failed to demonstrate he has achieved an appropriate balance between appropriate national, strategic, local policy and guidance, in particular, the impact on leisure space. 38. The PH has not given sufficient regard to government Covid guidance which states: “If you need to travel, walk or cycle where possible, and plan ahead and avoid busy times and routes on public transport.”. 39. The decision to remove the measure is in flagrant disregard to relevant national and local strategies and policy.
Article 12 – 1.1 (f) - Ensure the action is proportionate to what the Council wants to happen Reasons for call-in 40. It is not clear in the decision how it relates to what the Council wants to happen, or why early removal is desirable, proportionate or appropriate, especially whilst we are still very actively in the grip of the pandemic, with local exercise on foot or by bike being recommended by the NHS and local and national government. 41. The Portfolio Holder is promoting the Transforming Travel initiative, which is intended to promote Active Travel across the conurbation, including measures such as this. The feedback cites a number of people walking or cycling through the park as part of their commute, including clinical staff working at the adjacent Hospital, and reducing short car journeys. 42. The Corporate Aims of BCP Council include supporting people at all stages of life, but it seems this decision favours motorists over anyone else, indeed the installation of the measure supports many of the key priorities and values of the BCP Corporate Strategy, as evidenced in the feedback statements elicited by the draft decision. In particular the measure contributes to promoting sustainable communities, meeting priorities of sustainability and wellbeing, supporting connected communities, fulfilled lives, sustainable environment, dynamic places and a brighter future. 43. Removal of the measure is not proportionate at this time, and is contrary to the stated aims and values of this Council.
29 Options for Overview and Scrutiny Board to Offer Advice 44. The Constitution prescribes the call-in procedure. It is for the Board to consider the matter and decide whether to offer any advice to the Cabinet. 45. If the Board decides not to offer any advice to Cabinet, then the decision may be implemented immediately. If advice is offered, the Cabinet will be required to reconsider the decision in light of the advice of the Board. 46. Where a matter is considered and advice is offered by the Overview and Scrutiny Board, its advice will be submitted to the Cabinet for a decision to be made on the matter. The Cabinet shall consider the advice, but shall not be bound to accept it in whole or in part. It shall have sole discretion to decide on any further action to be taken in relation to the decisions in question, including confirming, with or without amendment, the original decision or deferment pending further consideration, or making a different decision. There are no further rights to enable a Councillor to submit a Call-In notice. The decision may then be implemented.
Summary of financial implications 47. There are no financial implications arising from this report.
Summary of legal implications 48. The law relating to call-in originates from the Local Government Act 2000 which establishes that scrutiny has a power to review or scrutinise decisions made but not implemented by the executive. 49. The Constitution, (Part 4, Section C) prescribes the Council’s procedures pursuant to the regulations. 50. The right of Call-in should only be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a means of delaying a decision. It is an established part of the checks and balances on the Executive.
Summary of human resources implications 51. There are no human resource implications arising from this report.
Summary of sustainability impact 52. There are no sustainability issues arising from this report. The decision record appended addresses relevant implications.
Summary of public health implications 53. There are no public health implications arising from this report. The decision record appended addresses relevant implications.
Summary of equality implications 54. There are no equality implications arising from this report. The decision record appended addresses relevant implications.
Summary of risk assessment 55. The procedures for processing and considering call-in requests is detailed in the Council’s Constitution. There are no specific risks associated with this report,
30 however, failure to comply with the Council’s procedure rules would give rise to potential reputational damage or legal challenge.
Background papers Published works
Appendices Appendix 1 - Portfolio Holder Final Decision, the proposed decision (which was confirmed without modification) and other background information
31 This page is intentionally left blank
32 Appendix 1
PORTFOLIO HOLDER DECISION POST ENGAGEMENT FINAL DECISION
Report subject Whitecliff Road ETRO
Decision maker Councillor Mike Greene – Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability
Proposed decision To revoke the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) to remove the EATF (Emergency Active Travel Fund) Tranche 1 point road closure from Whitecliff Road at Keyhole Bridge.
Proposed decision 15 January 2021 publication date
Engagement period Following the publication of the proposed decision, interested parties were invited to comment on the proposal for a period of five- clear days from 15 January 2021 to 22 January 2021 inclusive.
Comments received A total of 423 responses were received to the proposed decision via the online representations form and a further 15 responses via email to the service unit. All responses were provided to the Portfolio Holder for consideration before reaching this final decision. A full schedule of all responses received is appended to this decision record.
Decision taken The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability has considered the representations received and determined to confirm the decision outlined above without modification.
Date of final decision 27 January 2021
Portfolio Holder Notes In coming to my decision, I have read and thoroughly considered all the papers provided by officers and all the submissions and emails received during both the full consultation period and the additional period of a week following publication of my draft decision on 15 January 2021. I can confirm that although a large number of representations were received during the week 15-22 January, I do not believe any of them contained significant arguments or points that had not already been made during the main consultation period and had not therefore already been considered in coming to the draft decision. The representations received during this week did, however, highlight some misunderstanding and confusion about the purpose of the consultation and the process. As the officer report noted, there was a very significant increase in responses received after I had indicated on 6 October 2020 that I favoured removing the restriction. This was due to the “pro-closure” side of the debate actively campaigning to encourage responses of support for the closure. Although this adds substantial weight to the argument that
33 the proportion of responses received in favour or against the proposal was not representative of overall opinion, I have given all responses equal weight, regardless of whether they were received before or after 6 October. Equally it is important to recognise that a consultation is not a referendum, so whether the number of responses is representative is not really relevant. Both sides believe passionately that the other is the “vocal minority”. The true purpose of the consultation is to hear all the points made in the responses and understand the arguments put forward by all respondents. This has been done. In choosing which ward councillors to engage with and listen to, arguments have been put forward that the closure lies entirely within Parkstone Ward. This is because motorised vehicles approach Keyhole Bridge either from Poole Park on the south-east bound lane, which lies in Parkstone Ward, or from the Sandbanks Road side where the entire carriageway lies in Parkstone Ward. Additionally, all properties near the bridge lie in Parkstone Ward. However, the bridge lies on the boundary with Poole Town Ward and the route is used as a foot- and cycle-route by many Poole Town Ward residents as well as by those from further afield. I have chosen to treat this as though it lies in both Parkstone and Poole Town wards and have consulted with both Parkstone and Poole Town ward councillors. Officers and I have also spoken with both. The Parkstone Ward councillors are very strongly opposed to the closure and in favour of re-opening the route to motorized traffic. Among the Poole Town Ward councillors, two were strongly supportive of the closure throughout and there was some confusion over the position of the third. However, that councillor has since let it be known that they are now definitely supportive of the closure, so I have treated the view of the Poole Town Ward Members as unanimously in support of retaining the closure. In reaching my decision I particularly considered the following points and arguments which were brought up by consultation respondents, ward councillors, officers and others. The Park Experience It is clear that a large number of people who enjoy Poole Park on foot or cycle believe their experience has been enhanced by not having motorized traffic passing through this section of the park. Previously there were around 290 vehicles per hour using Keyhole Bridge, rising to around 510 during the 5pm to 6pm key commuter hour. Park users have enjoyed both the quiet and a feeling of decreased danger, particularly those with young children. Against this there is a much smaller cohort of older and less mobile people who used to enjoy a drive through the park and this opportunity is no longer available to them. However, there is still the opportunity for those people to enter and leave the park by car. For the majority, it is clear that the park experience has been improved by the closure.
34 Air Quality A number of consultation respondents said they felt the air quality has improved in the park during the closure. However, this effect is likely to be relatively minor given that traffic volumes have always been relatively low and the space is very open. Against this, increased volumes and congestion on Sandbanks Road and Parkstone Road, which have to carry more traffic with the closure in place, will worsen air quality on roads that are built up on both sides and on one side respectively. This is likely to outweigh air quality improvements in the Park itself. Road Safety Many consultation respondents have stated that the bridge was unsafe for pedestrians and cyclist while motor vehicles were permitted. However, the recorded accident and casualty statistics do not support this, with no car/pedestrian or car/cyclist accidents since 2013. Nevertheless, there is certainly a perception of increased safety which can be valuable in itself. Since the closure there has been increased conflict reported between cyclists and pedestrians. Parkstone Ward councillors have received direct reports of this from those involved. These are very credible as the speed of some cyclists entering the Park via Keyhole Bridge has noticeably increased. However, this could be addressed though introducing other physical measures to force cyclists to dismount or slow down. Increased Use By Pedestrians And Cyclists Although many consultation responses cited an increase in pedestrians and cyclists using the bridge since the closure was introduced, there were virtually none which evidenced the assumption that this increase was actually due to the closure. In almost every supportive case the respondent said that the closure had enhanced their walking or cycling trip rather than that the respondent had switched to walking or cycling rather than driving. The visible increase is much more likely to be a result of the pandemic which has seen a large increase in walking, cycling and the use of open public spaces such as Poole Park. In the long run, the introduction of a series of local measures such as the closure of Whitecliff Road could well lead to the modal shift at which this closure was aimed. But there is no evidence that this has occurred to date. Increased Congestion and Journey Times A significant number of respondents suggested that the closure would cause congestion on Parkstone Road and elsewhere on the road network. There have been no studies carried out during the trial period, which is appropriate as the COVID pandemic has led to traffic levels across the network well below normal for most of the year. However, a study was carried out in 2016 which provided clear, unambiguous evidence that closure of the Park to through-traffic caused additional congestion on Parkstone Road (and to a lesser extent elsewhere).
35 Some respondents supporting the closure have pointed to the fact that the additional journey time was only 3 minutes and 22 seconds on average. However, this argument fails to take into account that this journey delay is experienced by thousands of vehicles each school day. In total, the study demonstrated that closure of the park from 4pm to 6pm on schooldays alone – the peak evening commuter period – would result in an additional 23,000 hours per annum of car time on Parkstone Road. The calculation is detailed below. When we note that there will be other (though lesser) delays during the other hours of the day and on weekends and school holiday, the true delay figure is probably a lot higher than 23,000 hours per annum. The Department for Transport produces Transport Analysis Guidance which provides “Value of Time” figures to use in assessing schemes which alter journey times. Using these figures and reasonable assumptions, this equates to an economic cost to the area of around £220,000 per year. Again the calculations are detailed below. An argument could be made that the COVID pandemic will lead to a sustained systemic reduction in car traffic. However, the only available evidence unfortunately points the other way, with traffic just before the current Christmas and Lockdown period at close to pre-COVID levels. By not taking this effect or the evidence from the 2016 study into account, I believe the Decision Impact Assessment classification of the effect on the Economy as “Amber” is incorrect. I believe it should be “Green”. Conversely, had the decision to implement the closure originally been through a rigorous assessment, I believe this evidence would have meant a “Red” classification for Economy. Effect on Climate Change While there may be minor benefits from some of the factors listed above, I do not believe that in total they will come close to the disbenefits to the climate of the additional 23,000 hours of car journeys the closure would cause in a non-COVID year. Had this been considered, I believe the DIA assessment of the decision to revoke the closure should have been “Green” rather than “Amber”. Equalities Issues The Equalities Impact Assessment produced in January 2021 provides a good analysis of the consultation responses. It notes that respondents with disabilities are notably less supportive of the aims of the closure. Against this, the EQIA points out that sustainable travel is more inclusive. The EQIA notes that less pollution and better air quality especially benefits those with respiratory conditions. However, it was written without the benefit of the above analysis which shows that this particular Active Travel measure is actually likely to lead to increased pollution and poorer air quality. Conclusion In light of all the above, I believe the disbenefits of maintaining the closure of Whitecliff Road outweigh the benefits and so confirm my draft decision to revoke the closure.
36 It would not normally be necessary to include an explanation such as this alongside a Portfolio Holder decision. However, I hope that in doing so on this highly controversial issue I have demonstrated how I have carefully considered all the responses received to the consultation and how I have analysed all the aspects brought up. Calculations The 2016 Survey of Journey Times on Parkstone Road recorded the number of car journeys and the time taken for each journey during periods when Poole Park was closed to through-traffic. It compared these figures with the same information gathered when the Park was open. Both open and closed states were analysed for weekdays during school term times and during school holidays. The results suggested that significant changes in journey time only occurred during school term dates. Similar analysis was carried out on Longfleet Road, which is likely to have carried some traffic seeking to avoid the congestion on Parkstone Road. The results there were similar but less severe. Number of vehicles traveling Away From Poole between 16.00 and 18.00 per school day = 1708 Number of School Days in Year = 195 Average Additional Delay when Poole Park closed = 3 min 22 seconds = 202 seconds Total additional journey delays per year = 1708 x 195 x 202 / 3,600 hours = 18,688 hours.
Number of vehicles traveling Towards Poole between 16.00 and 18.00 per school day = 2,150 Number of School Days in Year = 195 Average Additional Delay when Poole Park closed = 38 seconds Total additional journey delays per year = 2150 x 195 x 38 / 3,600 hours = 4,425 hours.
Total Additional Journey Times on Parkstone Road during the period 1600-1800 across all school term weekdays in the year = 18,688 + 4,425 = 23,113 hours.
DfT Transport Analysis Guidance Value of Time (all values based on 2010 prices): Working time: £19.27/hr Commuting time: £9.95/hr Other time: £4.45/hr
Assumed Mix for Parkstone Road 1600-1800 weekdays: Working time: 0.0% Commuting time: 50%
37 Other time: 50%
Weighted Average Value of Time (2010 values) = 50% x £9.95 + 50% x £4.45 = £7.20 / hour
Inflate by RPI change 2010 to 2020: Weighted Value of Time = £7.20 x 1.32 = £9.504 / hour
Economic Value of Time lost due to increased journey times = £9.504 x 23,113 = £219,666
Call-in and urgency: Subject to any urgency provisions which shall be identified, this decision will not come into force, and may not be implemented, until the expiry of 5 clear working days after the decision was made, recorded and published.
38 PORTFOLIO HOLDER DECISION - WHITECLIFF ROAD ETRO SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED VIA ONLINE FORM (Text is displayed as entered by the respondent and may include grammatical or typographical errors)
No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
1 M Lohez BH122AU Keep etro on white cliff road and keyhole bridge filter to the park
2 Bethany BH14 8DY It would be a travesty to reopen the bridge to road traffic. Too many drivers approach at too high a Pearson speed, are intimidating towards pedestrians walking through and it generally a dangerous point. I'm thoroughly against it being reopened.
3 Michelle BH151YE It has been much more user friendly for walking and cycling with it closed to motor vehicles and Woodrough has stopped cars using it as a short cut
4 Alison Lord BH14 8NA Please dont reopen the bridge. With it closed, it's been so much safer and more pleasant walking
39 and cycling along Whitecliff road and into or through the park, which I do at least once a week. When I first moved to Poole 3 years ago, I was shocked that traffic was allowed through the bridge at all as it is so narrow, and that cars were allowed to drive through the park as if it was a normal road, making the park less like a park and more like a wider than usual grass verge alongside a main road. Now, with the bridge closed and through traffic not allowed, it actually feels like a proper park where I can go to enjoy the greenery, the water, the space and the relative peace.
5 Mike Oates BH15 2EN I understand that the bridge closure to traffic at Whitecliff is to be reversed . I would like to record my opposition to this as the closure has enabled a more secure flow of pedestrians and cyclists increasing the link between Poole Park and Baiter . This also gives tangible evidence to visitors and residents alike that traffic reduction and enhancement of carbon use free areas is a priority to BPC
6 Ann Edwards BH15 2LA I believe the bridge should remain closed to vehicles. I walk in the park daily bike pedestrian and passage through the bridge has been much safer and without vehicles makes it possible for people to maintain social distancing.
7 Abigail BH15 2QW Please can I support this Etro. I was surprised to see that this was to be removed- as having the Banfield keyhole bridge closed to vehicular traffic has been brilliant for residents like myself. The BCP have improved the paths in white cliff park, and the through ways in pole park. I am now able to cycle with my three children all over- and there is easy passage under the bridge. Before- I had to run No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) ahead to check I could bring my three small children through. There is no need for through traffic there as the surrounding roads are adequate. This Etro compliments the amazing work being done in Poole Park to make it even more pedestrian friendly. Best wishes
8 Mandy Burt BH15 2QL Your reports conclude that the overall result of removing the keyhole bridge/Whitecliff Road ETRO is negative therefore it should remain closed to motor traffic. The online consultations were supposed to be a democratic representation of individual views and the overwhelming numbers show support for this ETRO. To remove it would be a flagrant abuse of power and would go against your promises and assurances.
9 Sara Johnson BH15 2NZ Please leave keyhole bridge as pedestrian only. It makes so much sense and has made the whole area so much safer and user friendly since closing it. I have 3 young children and we regularly use the route. It brings great peace of mind knowing we are not going to be met by vehicular traffic coming the other way. I also use it for running and it is so much safer now. I really hope you consider ALL the families, walkers, exercisers and cyclists when making your decision. Thanks
40 10 Robb Tooley BH15 2LH I strongly support keeping Keyhole Bridge closed to motor traffic. I live near the park and use it for recreation with my family. I also use the route through the park and then Keyhole Bridge when cycling with my family. It’s been so much more pleasant cycling towards and through Keyhole without the fear me and my children might be met by oncoming motor traffic which takes up the entire carriageway. Also I think anything which mitigates the amount of through motor traffic using the park is a good thing, as I feel the park is a place for residents to relax away from the noise and stress associated with passing motor vehicles.
11 Juliet Laurie BH15 2QS I think that the Whitecliff - Keyhole bridge ETRO should remain in place because it has made the route safer for pedestrians and cyclists, before it was used as a short cut and traffic often failed to give way to pedestrians despite the signs. It has also reduced traffic using the park as a short cut, which is was also safety issue. Many more residents feel safer using the route from Poole Park to Whitecliff including elderly people with walking frames, families with pushchairs, cyclists and dog walkers.
12 Gordon Laurie BH15 2QS There is no need to open this right of way. There are more appropriate routes. When using the bridge I have been subject on numerous occasions to verbal abuse from drivers who refuse to give way to pedestrians despite signs on both sides of the bridge. The speed at which drivers drove along this stretch was a danger to both cyclists and pedestrians and it is clear that the majority of drivers take no notice of speed restrictions or notices to give way. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
13 Ted Payne BH15 2QN NA I think that having the Keyhole bridge closed to traffic is brilliant. The road is less congested and it is so much easier to to walk and cycle through than it was when you had to dodge cars. It is perfect in these troubling times for people to walk or cycle through while engaging in their daily exercise. I can see no reason that cars would need to drive through the bridge. This change should be made permanent
14 Carolyn BH152QL NA Key hole bridge ETRO scheme has meant that the safety of so many road users has improved- Brooke cyclists,walkers, young mums with prams , joggers etc By opening it for car users again would be such a backward step and decrease road safety plus increase pollution and COVID safety. I am a new cyclist encouraged to get a bike to help during these difficult times. I breathe a sigh of relief when I enter the ‘closed to traffic roads’ as I know at this point I am safe and do not have to battle with cars to get through keyhole bridge on my way to Whitecliff. The recent survey has revealed many more people are in favour of keeping this ETRO closed to cars than against. This is such a positive response and one that I sincerely hope is listened too when a final decision is made. 41 15 Jason BH14 8AQ BHAT This second Consultation seems unnecessary given the evidence of the first however here is a Falconer submission. Of all the info and appendixes, I cannot see any reason to remove this measure, Overwhelmingly BH14 residents have greatly enjoyed this intervention, removing it for the convinience of a few, over the benefits to many shows extremely limited consideration of the bigger picture, additionally keeping will greatly enhance the upcoming Tranche 2 ATF Whitecliff scheme Details from the first set of consultations:- Appendix C shows that accessibility issues would be greatly impacted, there isnt even a footway wide enough for a wheelchair there. Which effectively prohibits all disabled users NOT in a car. "The decision to remove the closure has both negative and positive impacts on different user types. However the decision may be regarded as negative overall" Appendix D, Decision Impact shows all negative or minimal effects and no green benefits. Of the formal ETRO responses (223) only 35 were objections 128 in support (57%) No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Opening this has linked Poole Park and Whitecliff in a time when public health and well being is under spotlight even more and given a much improved park. Having incremental reduction in motor traffic is part of the BCP longer term aims through the Eco strategy- and not only BCP- an integral element of the Conservative Gvt 'Gear Change' agenda. Mr Greene- BCP are making great strides on elements of transport governance, ref Parking policy, continue this leadership with leaving this measure in place, an urban parkland is not a through route of convinience, its a destination place for all of our well being. Residents of the future will thank you for listening. Jason Falconer, 4a Sandbanks Road, Poole
16 Mrs Sue Mogg BH14 8AH As a resident in Orchard Ave since 1991 I plead for the bridge to be reopened. I am a daily user of the park and bridge either cycling, walking or running. The immediate impact was the increased volume of cars, many who obviously didn’t know the area as they stopped on the bend outside my house unsure if to turn left or right. I reported my concerns to Mr Curruthers of BCP Transportation of the observed near misses immediately on 31st 42 August 2020. Other cars come round the bend far too fast. My neighbour had her cat run over outside her house when cars should be slowing down for the next bend. We observed an increase in cars coming through Orchard Ave rather than continuing through the bridge. Many of these drivers appear lost and have been turning down the cul de sac near footpath 40 and turning in my neighbour’s driveway ( reported to Mr Curruthers). I do not see how this change has improved access to NCR 25 which runs along Parkstone Bay at Baiter. There has always been a safe and direct access via the tunnel at the end of the Park Lake Road which is far more direct and safe for access to Poole Town and the hospital. There has also been direct access at the end of Sherwood Ave by the play park. The narrowness of the bridge naturally means divers must slow down to negotiate it. There is a narrow pathway which supports social distancing to walk in single file. I would suggest the pedestrian priority signs are placed on the entrance walls of the bridge so can not be missed.
17 David Fevyer BH2 6PY I would like to state my opinion on the proposal to remove the ETRO on Keyhole Bridge. In my view the ETRO has been essential to enabling safe and usable access between Poole Park and Whitecliff Park for people on foot, using wheelchairs, on bikes, and those with small children. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Removing this ETRO and returning access to motor traffic would negatively impact people of all ages - including those without access to cars - and in particular restrict their ability to exercise safely at a time when safe outdoor exercise is at a premium. I can see no benefit to removing the ETRO given that access to both parks by motor vehicles remains entirely possible and safe via other routes at no additional cost, inconvenience, or safety risk. The ETRO itself is inline with both long term government policy on enabling more walking and cycling, and short/medium term policy on enabling safe access to the outdoors during the current pandemic. As a local resident who has visited both parks since childhood I only wish that the current ETRO had been put in place decades ago. I therefore oppose the removal of the ETRO and support it's continuation and eventual permanence.
18 Mr Peter Mogg BH14 8AH Please re open the bridge. I have lived in Orchard Ave for 30 years and cycle and walk in Poole Park, Whitecliff/Baiter areas on a daily basis, using Keyhole Bridge thousands of times. I am also a motorist, but as it happens rarely drive through the bridge. However, I cannot see the need to close the bridge to traffic. The narrowness and bend on the 43 Whitecliff side dictate that traffic has to slow to a walking pace to access the bridge. Quite honestly if cyclists cannot negotiate the bridge and interact with pedestrians (allowing the priority as the road signs state) and vehicles they probably shouldn’t be cycling – not on roads or shared pathways. When the bridge was closed last August there was a huge increase in traffic through Orchard Ave and Twemlow Ave. The junction at Sandbanks Road/Orchard Ave was noticeably busier and I would say more dangerous than Keyhole Bridge. In the spring and summer and after lockdown traffic levels will increase again and the closure of Keyhole Bridge will exacerbate the situation. Please re - open the bridge to all traffic but, may I suggest BCP could improve the signage and perhaps put road humps both sides of the bridge and possibly road markings to clearly show it as a cycle route with pedestrian priority.
19 John Hambly BH15 2QS I strongly support the making of this measure permanent. It has made living with the Covid pandemic much easier, encouraged me to engage in ‘Active Travel’ more often and has made my exercise activities safer and more pleasant
20 Jon Dance BH14 7PP I use the underpass regular with my children when cycling to access poole park from WhiteCliff. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Following the successful trial I think it should remain closed to cars as in the 2021 it makes no sense to accessible to cars due to be to narrow for many modern vehicles also visibility is very poor when coming from poole park. I have experienced a number of near misses my self over the year. As there are existing exits from the park via other routes there is no reason to maintain vehicular access via this route. Also the benefits of route being purely for pedestrians and cyclists are huge as connects two areas that are heavily used by families together safely. This an opportunity that should not be missed, given that the impact of not doing are negligible to car users. Whilst the safety, community and environmental benefits are huge. Seems to be a bit of no brainer and demand for doing banning cars will only grow louder.
21 Avril Hambly BH15 2QS NA I strongly support the making of this measure permanent. It has made living with the Covid pandemic much easier, encouraged me to engage in ‘Active Travel’ more often and has made my exercise activities safer and more pleasant
22 C. Roberts BH15 2NX Poole Living Living Streets is the UK charity for everyday walking, and I am writing to represent the Poole 44 Streets branch. We strongly believe that Keyhole Bridge should remain closed to motor vehicles. This is because the bridge is not suitable for the safe passage of people walking, and to a lesser extent, cycling through the bridge. We refer to “walking” to include people in wheelchairs, on mobility scooters, or using other mobility aids. Living Streets aims to foster independence for the young, elderly and disabled by making our streets accessible to all, not just those who are lucky enough to have access to a car. Keyhole Bridge does not even have a proper pavement. A blind person, a child, or someone who is a little slow or unsteady on their feet could not be expected to walk through there alone, and that is not acceptable. Those people have every right to be there and to feel safe and welcome. The bridge links two parks, two of our town’s greatest assets, and outdoor exercise has never been more important than it is right now. One of Living Streets’ main policies is to enable more kids to walk to school. The Government aims to get 55% (currently 48%, down from 70% a generation ago) of primary children walking (or scooting/cycling) to school by 2025, as they recognise the immense benefit that this has on children’s health and learning. We know that Keyhole Bridge is used by children on their way to school. The closure to motor vehicles, in combination with the other measures at Birds Hill and Tatnam Road, creates a quieter, safer route for children walking or cycling to Poole High, Longfleet and Oakdale schools. In ‘20-‘21, a number of BCP schools are participating in our WOW walk to No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) school challenge, so it seems inconsistent for the Council to remove measures which help keep the children safe. A road through a park should never be used as a thoroughfare or a way to avoid traffic on the main roads. A pleasant view for drivers to enjoy on their way back from town should not be deemed more important than the safety of the most vulnerable road users of all. Thank you.
23 Jenni Bowman BH15 2DR I find this underpass treacherous to use. Runners and cyclists use it as well as cars. It’s a completely blind corner and I fear it is an accident waiting to happen.
24 M Lohez BH12 100% in favour of this scheme also following the council report and initial consultation findings. This is especially true since the reduced speed humps in Poole Park will no doubt increase traffic speeds. I do feel it could be made better, for example by either widening/removing the pavement to separate traffic.
25 Geoff Mills BH179EP Very pleased to see the road reopened but would like to see an integrated transport plan for the 45 Bowers area that incorporates all means of sustainable travel rather than ill-conceived and rushed schemes.
26 Mrs Marion BH148BJ I urge Councillor Greene to observe the rule of democracy and common sense and KEEP this Lohez closure and make it permanent. The people I meet on my regular walks have all been happy to be able to use this safe route into the park from Whitecliffe.
27 Carol Baker BH14 0RW The closure of the bridge has been such a success . I would like this to become permanent . It makes it safe to walk , run or cycle under the bridge ... as no cars allowed ...
28 Richard Davey BH15 1EU Having this small tunnel closed has made a huge difference to the feeling of safety of walkers and runners in the park. It has seemed to reduce traffic flow and the pollution from cars over that side of the park. I go through here most days and have lost count of the times I've early been hit by a car speeding through the park. Everyone I've spoken to has commented on how much nicer the park is without cars coming through here. Also it surely fits in with the Climate Emergency and anyone backtracking on this would be seen by a very poor move and definitely lose votes.
29 Karen BH140QG I have much enjoyed the improved safety that this road closure brings to Poole park. As a resident Herndon who is within walking and cycling distance of the park it encourages me to do so rather than use my car. It is much safer for my child. I run walk and cycle under here. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
30 Suzy Hill BH9 3NZ I use this route daily to cycle to work. Since changing the access to no cars, it has been safer and more pleasant in the park. I am a driver and a cyclist and as a driver I am quite happy to drive around the park, I have no need to drive through it. Cycling needs more encouragement, it would be a shame to undo this.
31 Sharon BH15 3BL Never been a problem and no more dangerous than driving along a road with a lot of parked cars and vans on both sides. The cars are always careful Open it up again. It doesn’t stop cars driving through the park they just use Twemlow Avenue instead
32 Andrew This has proved to be a success and I see from the last consultation, very favourable. The bridge Eydmann is a danger when open to traffic. Please keep it closed and give us our roads back for our children’s sake.
33 Carol Hill BH14 8DY Please keep the bridge closed for everyone’s safety and enjoyment
34 Darren Elbrow BH122HU I’m in favour of the Keyhole Bridegd at Whitecliff staying closed to vehicular traffic 46 35 Tim Flynn BH15 1YE Hi, I'd like to support keeping the active travel scheme at keyhole bridge. As a regular with a double buggy, it makes the area so much safer! The park is so much more tranquil not having to dodge those taking two minutes off their commute.
36 Angela Pooley BH8 9HW The current restrictions should be made permanent. Failure to do this would go against the BCP's alleged committment to make the conurbation safer for pedestrians and cyclists enecouraging more sustainable travel in line with the BCP's Climate Emergency declaration
37 Trevor & BH14 8SJ We support the closure to vehicles. We cycle (on our tandem) that route and it’s much safer for Lorraine pedestrians, disabled and cyclists alike. Please maintain the closure. Muddimer
38 Simon Although I understand that there might be a desire to reopen the keyhole bridge and one of BCP’s reasons is to reduce congestion surely there is an equal reason to ensure that we maintain a pedestrian and cyclist friendly environment. The best compromise would be to install automatic barriers (timed both in the day and different days of the week) so that these could be operated to suit the environment at any specific time at the bridge. This is used in other towns to control town centre traffic and works very effectively. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
39 Derek Heritage BH7 6QN Closing motor vehicle access to and from Poole park via keyhole bridge is one of the best and most progressive things to happen in our BCP area for quite some time. We will look back in a few years time and it will be hard to believe we were stupid enough to allow this small space to shared with vehicles and walkers/cyclists.
40 Elizabeth BH148AH I strongly object to the proposal to reopen the railway bridge on whitecliff Road to cars. There is no Watts footpath wide enough for a pram or wheelchair making it incredibly dangerous for pedestrians to use when vehicles are on the road. Since the closure I have been able to safely walk my baby to whitecliff Park and I would like to continue to have safe access to this park. I believe the feedback on the first consultation was to keep the road closed so I am dismayed to see that another consultation has been opened when the public have already made their views very clear. The road should remain closed to vehicles.
41 Sue Poole Park is not a means of alleviating traffic congestion in other places it is a public open space gifted to the people of Poole for their quiet and healthy enjoyment. Government policy is to reduce dependence on cars not to encourage it. The people of Poole appear to be mainly supportive of
47 the closure. Please support your constituents and recommend the continuing closure of the Keyhole bridge
42 Helen BH14 8AL n/a I would support retaining the closure of the keyhole bridge at Whitecliff. Parsonage An alternative would be to create a pelican crossing traffic light system so that pedestrians and cyclists could press the button and lights would show red to cars whilst the tunnel is traversed.
43 Judy BH21 1SN Dorset Cyclists On behalf of all the members of this organisation, living in the area, ranging from older people to Windwood Network families with small children, please, for their safety and enjoyment of the park, Baiter and Whitecliff, please keep the bridge closed. This provides a safe route through for recreation and utility purposes. Those who are not able to drive can access the area more safely. Some of our older members can no longer drive for various reasons, but they can cycle. Some members do not own cars. We even have members who wish use mobility scooters and they feel we can help them access areas. This is not about those people who ride fast. This is about everyone. Do not dismiss us.
44 Agnes BH151XY Please keep the bridge closed for traffic. Its much safer in the park. Allows us to cycle with children Medrycka and being safer on the road.
45 Pete BH15 4AT I think the access through keyhole bridge should be returned to all traffic No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
46 Mike Dale BH14 8HY Keyhole bridge should remain closed to motor vehicles in order to provide a safe route for pedestrians and cyclists as well as contributing to the recreational value of Poole Park by eliminating this rat run and reducing traffic
47 Zeena Bonds BH9 2QJ N/a I think the road closure at Keyhole Bridge is a really positive move. It allows pedestrians to have priority and allow families to access the area safely in foot and by bike. I do hope you will reconsider and maintain this road closure.
48 Poppet Dale BH14 8HY It should never have been allowed to be a rat run. With it closed to traffic it is the only route that I can safely use on my bike into Poole
49 Stephen Baker BH15 1SB B/A I’m not understanding why there is a second consultation but think that the filters should stay in place on Whitecliff Road. Having read through the information and appendices I am in favour of the keyhole bridge remaining closed and any related measures to reduce car and lorry transport, including tranche two ATF scheme.
48 50 Paul BH21 1SN 1. Poole Park is a primarily a park, not a traffic cut through. Any further motor use through the Windwood bridge undermines it original function. 2. The bridge is really too narrow for sensibly driving through. Any motor vehicle using it endangers any other user. 3. Central government has requested this review, and the time scale for completing this is not yet reached. 4. Local people and the local authority's specialist officers overwhelmingly support this closure. 5. How does this premature decision work within our democratic process?
51 Stewart BH12 1PY I support the closure if this entrance to the park for motor vehicles. The park should not be a Baynham through route for cars. The closure is beneficial for.pedestrians cyclists and non car users. It improves the park on the other side from cars and makes for a much better environ
52 Sarah Browne BH148DH We are strongly against the tunnel at the bottom of Sherwood Avenue being reopened. As a family we have loved having the road closed, we are no longer in fear of fast cars using the park as a rat run. Sherwood Avenue has been significantly calmer and the park has been a joy. Please do take in to account that non of the locals want it to be reopened. Please listen to your community. Kind regards No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
53 Connor BH12 1PR The bridge should remain closed to vehicles, very dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians if reopened
54 Gavin BH152AZ Open the road. Its a vital route
55 Ross Hodder BH14 8QL I am strongly opposed to the decision to end the Whitecliff Road ETRO early. Keyhole bridge has proven to be popular and well used as a pedestrian and cycle only route as evidenced by the overwhelmingly supportive results of the formal and informal consultation process. It has the effect of encouraging active travel, reducing car use and making Poole Park a more pleasant environment. I fully support this measure becoming permanent.
56 Jeanette BH13 6BW The initial consultation result was overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the closure measures, so Hancock why the further debate? The closure to motor vehicles must remain, for the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and local residents. 49 57 Kevin SO420KD I travel to Poole from Lymington to work. During the pandemic I have driven to Bournemouth and Pritchard then cycled the rest of the way. I therefore regularly travel Whitecliff Road. It has become so much safer in recent months. Having for years driven regularly through the park and through the narrow railway bridge, it's hard thinking back that that could have been allowed. It's dangerous for cars and on the few occasions I have had to drive all the way, it is actually easier to drive on the main road than trying to navigate the narrow road/park. I therefore strongly believe that the bridge should remain car free and that it would be a backward step to change it back. Thank you.
58 Lucie Allen BH13 7PP I am extremely disappointed that the Portfolio Holder Mike Greene is in favour of revoking this ETRO. The consultation period has resulted in the majority of respondents in favour of keeping the route closed to traffic. In addition, your own DIA report shows that re-opening it would have MAJOR negative outcomes on Transport&Accessibility, Health and Well-being and Natural Environment. In addition the Equalities summary says there would ‘negative impact overall’. This link is really not suitable for motor traffic. There is no pavement to speak of, meaning walkers, runners, cyclists and mobility scooter uses have to enter a road with very little vision. The route is a link between two green spaces - Whitecliff Park and Poole Park and has provided a safe and pleasant passage between the two. Re-opening it to through traffic goes against all your own mission statements and pledges with regards to Active Travel, Climate Change etc. Despite the report from the consultation being in favour of the closure, the PH has proper it is reopened to traffic but the section of the report for Reasons for Decision doesn’t state any reasons. I am No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) emailing all the councillors at BCP with a PDF file of photos showing locals using the LTN which I hope illustrates to some of the councillors who are not local how much this link is being used. It is worth in particular noting the blind lady with her assistance dog who is recorded as saying she was never able to walk through here before.
59 Simon Ible BH2 6AB I am very disappointed at this proposal to remove the filter at Keyhole Bridge. We should be encouraging people to walk and cycle, particularly during the current pandemic, which this filter does. The consultation report shows positive effects, and negative effects from removal. Whilst consultation should not be a referendum it seems staggering that following a overall positive public response, that it should be removed.
60 Martin Jolly BH149JT N/A This bridge is completely unsuitable for through traffic to the park, by reopening this you will be sending completely the wrong message as a Council. This is a really well used access by walkers, cyclists, school children, disabled people and runners. We need to be improving areas for families and people and doing something to tackle the dreadful air quality, I am not sure how letting the range rovers through here again and blocking it up are improving local people's lives. What is the point of a consultation if you ignore the results? 50
61 Kate Tunks BH14 8DH I support the continued closure of Keyhole Bridge to motorised vehicles and urge the council to make the current Whitecliff Road ETRO permanent. It is now much safer for pedestrians and cyclists to use this route to enter and leave the park and travel around the area. The reintroduction of motor vehicles would create an unsafe situation for these vulnerable road users. I regularly use this route and have seen that the ETRO has encouraged more walking and cycling throughout the area by people of all ages and abilities. I know that improving health, fitness and air quality are specific aims of the council through it's TCF, LTP programmes and climate emergency declaration and this scheme helps achieve all these benefits.
62 Katie Robson BH15 2LL Please keep the keyhole bridge closed to cars. Our ability to use Poole Park and Whitecliff with a young family without the need to get in our car has greatly increased since the closure. It has made Poole Park a much more enjoyable place to be. It has always baffled me why anyone should be allowed to cut through the park - so many drivers are inconsiderate to people using the park as well as the geese when they cross the road in a long line when they use the park as a cut through. Those who need to access the park for parking still can. Please do not open up the keyhole bridge to cars.
63 Tracy BH14 8AN The closure of the keyhole bridge between whitecliff & Poole Park has been a resounding success. I live in Twemlow Ave & by lucky to be able to walk to the park. I don't miss using the No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) keyhole bridge at all as a short cut & it seems many 9f my neighbours feel exactly the same . The traffic down our road has barely increased. The best bit about the bridge being closed to traffic is seeing more people being able to safely negotiate through from Whitecliffe to the park without waiting for traffic. There has definitely been an increase in people enjoying the area, cycling, walking, running etc. Please do not go back to having it as a through road, in my opinion the would be a retrograde decision.
64 John Wesley BH123BQ Opening this to traffic again is ludicrous. It's far too narrow for anything but pedestrians and cyclists!
65 Tracy Blake BH4 8HE University I absolutely do not want the road opened to cars/motorised traffic. This scheme has enabled me & Hospitals others to cycle safely to work at Poole Hospital, keeping cars off the road & in the best possible Dorset circumstances to comply with social distancing measures. The reduced traffic in the park has also meant a quieter, cleaner environment in which to rest & recover from all that has occurred over the last year. It is scientifically proven that air pollution contributes to worsened covid-19 infections, strokes, heart attacks, depression & miscarriages. I implore BCP council to do everything it can to ensure that the local population isn't further struck with these travesties as we recover from the 51 pandemic.
66 Tony Harris BH149LR Please keep the Keyhole Bridge shut to vehicles. More than ever we need more space for people not cars. Less people need to commute by car and sustainable transport is the future.
67 Rebecca Ellis Please keep all the ETROs. They make a huge difference to me as a cyclist and walker. I am also a driver.
68 Julie Rolston BH153LA I think the keyhole bridge should stay closed to motor vehicles, the beautiful regeneration of the park is spoilt with so much engine noise .
69 Andy BH229PL Fully Supprt this road closure, it’s simply not fit for purpose for normal road traffic. This has made Sheppard immeasurable difference to cycling and safe transport for families to getting to/from white cliff park. Please don’t bow to pressure from the few to remove the low traffic benefit for the many!!
70 Wendy BH15 1QR The closure is brilliant and makes walking and cycling, especially with children, much easier and Tarpley-Naylor safer. I am in favour of keeping this closure.
71 Stewart BH178SB Pondtek. Keep the current road closure safety systems in place. Provides suitable measures for walkers and Remington cyclists. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
72 Angela BH12 1JG Please keep this closed, much safer for our family walks Penwarden
73 Adam Ford BH12 I am in favour of the road closure remaining in place and against the removal of this measure. Particularly given the result of the first consultation.
74 Gergely BH12 1AP I'm in favour of this road closures which makes cycling safer in the area. More of these closures Kormany are needed, a lot more...
75 Jon Brittain BH23 2ST Why has this gone to a second consultation that is not being particularly well publicised? And why is this even a proposal when your own evidence shows that the removal of this measure will be detrimental to many and ‘negative overall’ (Appendix C)? The majority of consultees responded favourably to this measure, it is inclusive for all NMUs, in particular disabled who cannot use this unless they are in a car. BCP day they are investing in sustainable travel and encouraging more use of sustainable means but then appear to be prioritising the car with such a proposal to remove this. It has opened up an otherwise dangerous route for all NMUs, with young children being able
52 to enjoy safe access that was not possible before. Why would you want to remove this? Stop prioritising the car and practice what you preach.
76 Terence BH14 8BB I'm appalled that vehicular traffic will be allowed through keyhole bridge again. Combined with the St.John opening of the new motorway through the park it will destroy what has become a wonderful destination for so many pedestrians for last few months. Just to satisfy road hogging motorists taking a short cut from Poole town centre to shore road.
77 Tom Kelly BH10 7JS Poole Hospital Why on earth would you re-open these roads and remove measures to encourage active bike users lifestyles? Madness group
78 Niall Adamson BH148NZ In favour of the closure. Far safer for cyclists and pedestrians
79 Susan BH14 8AZ Not applicable I am dismayed at the prospect of this bridge reopening to motor traffic. It has been an absolute Stockwell delight to see so many people taking advantage of the opportunity to use this route on foot and by bike. I live on Ashley Cross and used to drive through here but much prefer to give up driving here for the huge benefit of a safe walking and cycling space. Linking Whitecliff and Poole Park safely by such a now peaceful section of infrastructure must be a major benefit to people's mental health, especially the many NHS staff who can currently reach Poole Hospital by this route safely from Lilliput, Whitecliff and beyond without risking a car coming through or having to get round the civic No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) centre roundabout with it's lethal lane that is frequently blocked or driven through by vehicles. Poole is desperately short of cycling infrastructure for commuting and this is ideal for reaching the centre of Poole directly from the seafront route in from Sandbanks and from everywhere inbetween, including Canford Cliffs. It has also been heavily used by school children at Poole High and students at the college, as I have seen with my own eyes on many occasions. As a rare and valuable piece of heavily used cycling infrastructure it should be retained as part of BCP's duty to manage cycling traffic as part of the legal network management duty to keep traffic, including cycling traffic moving. Although cycle routes are in place in Poole these are geared to leisure, whereas this serves both commuting and leisure. The needs of those whose disabilities prevent them from driving but allow cycling or walking, particularly sight impaired should be considered as this has provided them with access to Poole Park. The recent grant to renovate Poole Park requires accessibility and this is the only accessible route for people whose disabilities prevent driving. All others cater for people whose disabilities allow driving but nowhere else is safe for those unable to drive through disability or are non drivers through choice or economic circumstance. The DVLA list of notifiable conditions for driving is extremely lengthy, many such as diabetes are very common, and all have potential to prevent driving. The ongoing problem of the drainage for this bridge being blocked since the autumn has given an artificially skewed view of 53 how well used the bridge is as the consequent, avoidable flooding has blocked access to cyclists and pedestrians on many occasions. If the drain is cleared the bridge will be more accessible to non motorised traffic. A constant stream of non motorised traffic is of benefit to the safety of children at Whitecliff play area compared to cars that used to whizz by. I take exception to any suggestion that my perception of this is wrong, based as it is on many years of taking children to this play area, usually by car because Sandbanks Road and Whitecliff Road had cars driving so quickly and constantly as to be dangerous to cross with small children. Whitecliff Road is also safer for cats which are tempted by the fenced trees on the other side of the road. Burglars are deterred by people passing by on foot or by bike as motorists cannot spot suspicious activity from their cars. In addition, improvements to cycling and walking facilities always give an uplift to property values, which will stimulate interest by property developers in this area, who are of course major contributors to the local economy.
80 Martin Howes BH12 4EP Don't re-open the bridge to car traffic. Its dangerous enough going through Poole park without having an Audi steaming through without slowing down.
81 Peter Morgan BH21 1XW I believe it would be wise to leave the closure of the entrance to Poole Park from Whitecliff closed off as it is presently working well for pedestrians and cyclists. The road is far too narrow under the bridge for vehicular access to be re-allowed along this stretch of road and for road users needing No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) to gain access to the park they are still able to do so using the side roads. The safety of pedestrians and cyclists should be the ultimate consideration
82 Ian Clarke BH140QS Nil The Keyhole bridge should be re-opened, as I had never witnessed any problem there in 40 years usage, as a pedestrian, a cyclist, a car driver, and a motorcyclist. All users have been considerate and reasonable in the use of this shared space.
83 Kate Mitchell BH13 6DE I was very surprised to hear that the Portfolio Holder is considering removing the scheme at keyhole bridge. As a Poole resident since birth I have used the path under the bridge countless times, however it is only since it has been closed to motor vehicles that I have felt safe doing so. Now I have young children I am much happier to use the route, where as before I may have avoided it as it was very difficult to traverse with a pushchair. Regardless of my personal circumstances and views, surely removing the feature would go against the Council’s own policies (sustainability, active travel, climate change) as we as against the majority of views from the previous consultations. There is no need for motor vehicles to use this route, it is easy enough to drive around (as I have done myself). Please retain this closure and make it permanent. 54 84 Michael BH1 1JE I strongly believe keyhole tunnel should remain closed to cars. I am someone who has regularly Headon used this route by bike and car. The benefits far outweigh the negatives. I trust you have considered all submissions.
85 Richard BH8 8QD Keep the ETRO closure in place of key hole bridge. Wintrip
86 Katie Cousins BH14 9LW I have enjoyed walking and cycling through whitecliffe and Poole park using keyhole bridge since the closure. It is far safer for me and my young family, as previously we had experienced many dangerous and irresponsible actions by car drivers not taking seriously the risks of children and animals using the parks whilst they are using it as a cut through. There seems no valid reason to keep this area open to traffic, when the environmental impact of it's closure is so positive. Lets get people out of their cars and make safe spaces for families using alternative travel.
87 Paul Slade It beggars belief that following a full consultation period of 6 months in which this scheme is overwhelmingly supported, an Equalities Impact Assessment which concludes that a decision to remove this measure would be negative, a Decision Impact Assessment that says there would be multiple major and minor negative impacts relating to various corporate priorities and with the supposed commitment to a Climate Emergency that the portfolio holder would even consider not No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) maintaining this improvement and moving to make it permanent. Please do not remove this and set a strong example of listening to people
88 Mandy Lagan BH152QL The park is much safer for children, cyclists, runners and dogs with no through traffic. Also seeing much more wild. Life such as kingfishers.
89 Lorette BH15 1UN Please do not reopen ...listen to the majority of local people who said this already. We need it to be Sanders safe there
90 Mark Sanders BH15 1UN Please keep the keyhole bridge closed to traffic - other than walkers and people on bikes. It is SO much better without cars.
91 Tim Meachin BH154PP The ETRO has provided a safe route for pedestrians & cyclists encouraging exercise while reducing risk. It has reduced traffic on the approach (park side). Removing this ETRO appears to be reacting to the feelings of the few rather than acting for the good of many.
92 Mary Came BH14 8RZ I think making keyhole bridge blocked to cars has made it (and the roads in Poole Park) much 55 safer for people & bikes. I often walk that way, but in the past it always scared me, especially when pushing a pushchair, as I'd have to push it into to road where the path narrows, into the path of potential oncoming traffic on a blind corner. It feels so much safer now & I see many families walking & riding their bikes through there. I really hope they keep keyhole bridge closed to cars.
93 Paul Fox BH15 1UX I thought there was already a consultation with overwhelming support to keep the keyhole bridge closed to motorised traffic ?? It was a dangerous 'rat run' when it was open and now SO much better. We and many others local to Whitecliff / Baiter have enjoyed walking this route. PLEASE KEEP IT CLOSED TO TRAFFIC. I am a car driver and have used this, but it's dangerous as so narrow. Also I thought the government was promoting more walking, cycling and quiet neighbourhoods ????
94 Melissa BH232NG I’m not sure why a second consultation is necessary given that one has already been carried out Carrington which found that of the 223 formal ETRO responses only 35 were objections and 128 were in support (57%). I would like to once again express my support for this measure, which has been enjoyed by many residents and visitors alike. It provides a much needed safe cycle and walking link between Whitecliff and Poole Park encouraging greater enjoyment of the greatly improved park. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) The enjoyment of many should not be sacrificed for the convenience of the few.
95 Rebecca BH14 8AJ Please retain the planters blocking the road under the railway line, it has reduced traffic flow Rogers through the park enabling a safer environment for children using the area, especially when on bikes and enabled safe access (esp. with children) under the bridge without running the gauntlet with traffic.
96 Jason BH17 9AE None The current scheme and restrictions should be kept in place. Stopping motor traffic going through Sanderson the keyhole bridge has made the whole area safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike, and has stopped the “rat run” cars that continue to use Poole Park as a short cut.
97 Kate Salter BH15 2QN Can you please explain how the decision to reopen keyhole (remove the ETRO) can be justified when the councils own direct impact assessment report shows the removal will only have negative impacts (3 major and 3 minor). Why are there no remedial/mitigation actions proposed to counter the negative impacts (as required by the direct impact assessment)? 56 In addition, surely on the risk assessment the perceived risk of ‘increased risk of harm from cyclists vs pedestrians’ could easily be mitigated by widening the pavement through the bridge to segregate cyclists and pedestrians? Reintroducing vehicles surely poses a far greater safety risk to all vulnerable users ? If the future aim of the council is to encourage sustainable travel shouldn’t the closure be retained? The ‘portfolio holder decision record’ itself states ‘the installation of the measure aligns with national and local Transport Policy by creating a more attractive sustainable travel route although if removed, the route will still be available to sustainable modes’. Isn’t ‘more attractive’ better than ‘available’ if a true desire for more sustainable transport exists? With reference to the comment ‘The Council is under a statutory duty under the Traffic Management Act to ensure the efficient use of its road network. Removing the traffic route through the park permanently and diverting traffic around it is likely to make the road network less efficient and will increase journey times in the vicinity’. By identifying the fact that retaining the closure makes the road network less efficient, it implies that the road through Poole park is a necessary through route and part of the road network. Is it not the case that the road through poole park is actually a private road and not part of the public highway? As an aside (which I will also refer to democratic services), it is highly frustrating as a member of the public to have to respond to consultation after consultation on effectively the same issue. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Council protocol won’t allow a petition on the same subject to be submitted within 6 months. Why therefore is this additional consultation allowed?
98 Douglas BH2 5JT Keep the underpass/tunnel closed. Much more pleasant for walking and cycling with the current Mccauley bollards in place.
99 Antoinette BH148AN Please continue to ban cars passing through the keyhole bridge. It is quieter, feels safer as a Mcaulay pedestrian and cyclist and has not resulted in more traffic up Twemlow Avenue.
100 Emma Waters BH18 9QZ Please keep the keyhole bridge closed to traffic. Much safer.
101 Christine BH23 1RA None I feel totally at a loss as to why I am once again writing my views on this scheme. I have read your Ratcliffe report and seen that the majority of respondents to the previous consultation are in favour of the closure to motor vehicles through the Keyhole Bridge I ride a bike regularly to Poole and beyond through Keyhole Bridge and it is wonderful to be able to use it without having to stop for cars. Whilst cars are supposed to give pedestrians priority I am
57 not sure that they actually do. It seems that this is a perfect way to encourage more people of all ages to walk and cycle with improved safety and less noise and less pollution but the council are now changing the rules of consultation and deciding in favour of less road usage on the alternative routes. Surely this is madness? Surely what is needed is a gradual and consistent plan to reduce traffic on all the roads - a coherent policy to enable walking, running, cycling, e-cycling, backed up with electric powered public transport. E-cars will still produce toxic emissions and whilst the engines are not as noisy, the noise of tyres on tarmac is certainly no less. I really am aghast that a consultation that has taken place is now shelved with a hurried further consultation taking place to get through this decision. It smacks of third world democracy and it leaves a very bad taste. I am and never have been an activist but this sort of thing is how people do become so! To reiterate, Keyhole Bridge should remain closed and a full detailed evaluation be undertaken at the end of the original period of the trial.
102 George BH2 6EB BCP Council I am aware of a number of residents in the area that are disappointed that their engagement with Farquhar the origional consultation appears to be disregarded. This seems strange to me since it was following the consultative process and timeframe recommended by Central Government. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) On a personal note I am aware of some very similar arguments offered to why Kings Park should not be closed to through motor traffic. These concerns have not come to pass and instead the route is used by active travellers to school and participating in leisure amenities in the park without fear of traffic.
103 Clare Furze BH13 7BN As a cyclist the closure has meant more pedestrians walk in the road making it unsafe on the roads. Also access for events including park runs and parking options for visitors to the park become more limited which is not in the spirit of sharing recreational facilities. The negatives appear or outweighs the benefits.
104 Claire BH14 8ES As an NHS worker walking to the hospital daily. I have enjoyed being safe and being able to social distance and walk in the road to remain 2meters from other park users. This tunnel was a rat run in rush hour and a number of times I have had wing mirrors clip me due to impatient drivers. Keep the tunnel closed.
105 Charmaine BH15 1YA I support keeping the ETRO at Whitecliff Road & Keyhole bridge in place permanently. Parkinson 58 It provides a much valued link between Whitecliff & Baiter and Poole Park - currently the only direct link between these areas suitable & safe for pedestrians. The air is much fresher here and pollution much reduced. This supports BCPs environmental goals. To reopen this to traffic offers no material benefit to anyone. Cars can access the park via other routes at little inconvenience whereas this current safe pedestrian access will be lost. Wheelchair and disabled scooters alongside families with buggies and young children benefit hugely from this too. In the many times I have walked this route with my dog I have not experienced any conflict with cyclists. I also note the officer report states this decision will be detrimental with 3 major & 3 minor reasons. It is also clear that a significant number of respondents to the first consultation are in favour of this remaining in place - if you count all respnses. To that end I do not see the need for this second consultation however since it has been deemed necessary I have responded to it.
106 M Bayne BH15 3RT The keyhole bridge should remain closed as it provides a safe passage for pedestrians and bike users. It has also stopped car speeding along the roads leading up to the bridge from both sides. Please make the decision to stop vehicular traffic permanent. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
107 Lewis Reade- BH15 1XS I fully support the closure of Key hole bridge and would be against the reopening. Blake
108 Nick Stebbing BH18 9DE This second Consultation seems unnecessary given the evidence of the first however here is a submission. Of all the info and appendixes, I cannot see any reason to remove this measure, Overwhelmingly BH14 residents have greatly enjoyed this intervention, removing it for the convenience of a few, over the benefits to many shows extremely limited consideration of the bigger picture, additionally keeping will greatly enhance the upcoming Tranche 2 ATF Whitecliff scheme Details from the first set of consultations:- Appendix C shows that accessibility issues would be greatly impacted, there isn't even a footway wide enough for a wheelchair there. Which effectively prohibits all disabled users NOT in a car. "The decision to remove the closure has both negative and 59 positive impacts on different user types. However the decision may be regarded as negative overall" Appendix D, Decision Impact shows all negative or minimal effects and no green benefits. Of the formal ETRO responses (223) only 35 were objections 128 in support (57%) Opening this has linked Poole Park and Whitecliff in a time when public health and well being is under spotlight even more and given a much improved park. Having incremental reduction in motor traffic is part of the BCP longer term aims through the Eco strategy- and not only BCP- an integral element of the Conservative Gvt 'Gear Change' agenda.
109 Edward Long BH14 0LY Please leave the traffic control in place on white cliff road, it is brilliant for young people in our community for example my 4 year old son who can safely cycle all around Poole park and white cliff park. Whoever put it in. Thank-you.
110 Paul Draper BH189DY Dear sir, The closure of the tunnel between whitecliff and poole park should remain. Firstly it makes getting through the tunnel safe for pedestrians, cyclists and disability scooters. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Secondly it reduces traffic in Poole park, making it safer and more pleasant for everyone. Thirdly it reduces pollution in both poole park and whitecliff park. Removing it would be a big step backwards in my opinion. Regards Paul Draper
111 Millie Earl BH12 2LH Having been a resident of Poole all my life, I'm very surprised that this measure has taken so long to be put in place. Like many, I absolutely love Poole Park - I cycle and walk there, play tennis there, exercise and have many fond memories from my childhood there. But one thing I have never understood is why we allow drivers to use our park as a through route from Lilliput, Canford Cliffs and Sandbanks to and from Poole. Parks and green spaces ought to be a place where we can breath fresh air, relax, exercise and enjoy the outdoors. With dwindling gardens due to infill, upward development and air pollution we 60 ought to protect these precious spaces and keep them from harm. Cars cause harm - to our airways, our wildlife and our climate. The ETROs were always going to be controversial since our country is still struggling to embrace active travel, despite the cost to the environment and our health. However, many people have rediscovered the outdoors recently and are cycling, walking, scooting and running more than ever for both travel and recreation, and any measure to encourage active travel - making active travel more convenient, safe and enjoyable - is only going to encourage more of it. But we need to look at this ETRO objectively. I personally don't think blind bend arguments and flooding are relevant. What's important is the 'why' and, Cllr Greene, you and I both know that opening that bridge enables drivers to use the route to cut out the Civic Centre roundabout. Last year was strange for many reasons, but this ETRO along with the park improvement works limiting traffic, changed the feel of the park completely - for the better and it thrived with visitors using it for what it is - a park. Ultimately, we shouldn't be enabling drivers to use a public park as a cut through - it goes against our climate emergency declaration, and our shared vision for a greener conurbation. And, to be honest, the sooner we can move towards stopping all through traffic through the park, the better.
112 Jenny Levings BH18 8NE I agree that keyhole bridge should be closed to traffic and only open to pedestrians and cyclists No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
113 Dan BH12 3DU Please keep the keyhole bridge closed to cars. It is a much more pleasant area to visit, especially in the current climate of encouraging people to use the outdoors carefully. They bridge is horrible to negotiate when there are cars speeding dangerously on that road.
114 Stephen Heir BH151ZA Please do NOT open the keyhole bridge entrance to Poole Park to motor vehicles.
115 Nick Fulker BH140LY Myself and my family would like to keep the area for pedestrians only and no vehicles. This is for safety, pollution and general atmosphere in the park.
116 Bev Miller BH231JA This MUST stay closed to motor traffic. BCP, I hope, are encouraging walking and cycling.....this bridge/tunnel has been invaluable to both these groups during lockdown...and beyond. There is absolutely no need for motor traffic to go along this stretch.
117 Katrina Day BH7 7BT This closure should remain! Not only because that is what the local residents prefer but also the first consultation resulted in favour of the closure.
61 118 Katie Hunter BH152LT Please do not reopen the keyrole bridge to traffic. The reduction in traffic has made me and my yiund family (1yr old and 4 year old) feel a lot safer. I also work 13hr shifts in the NHS and find the park my only relief for my mental health, whether running or walking, I have really notice the better air quality in the park since the keyhole bridge route has been closed and can easily social distance with other pedestrians and cyclists without having to navigate an increased traffic flow which will inevitably mean its more difficult to socially distance as pavement become more full of people and roads fill with unnecessary cars.
119 Zoe Mowlem BH15 2JQ We love on Fernside Rd, During the first lockdown and the whole summer I visited Poole Park with my daughters (11&7) everyday for a daily walk. In winter we have gone every Saturday and Sunday (we go in the evenings on weekdays in the summer and don’t do that during the winter due to the light). Having less traffic in the parks is wonderful, having the bridge closed makes it so much safer for us as a family as we usually enter from the civic centre round about, walk around the cricket pitch, up to the boating lake, through the bridge, along the waterside and then past the skate park and back into the park. When we head back we walk the back path as we call it, by the bowls club. We actively try to avoid the areas next to roads. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) In the summer I asked my 11 year old to list the good things through lockdown and number one on her list was no cars in Poole Park (I appreciate part of this was the timing of the works to the park meaning no traffic). I therefore do not want the bridge re-opened.
120 Joanna Keates BH15 2DR I am a local resident to Poole park and use it with my young family on a very regular basis. I can honestly say that not having traffic allowed through this very popular park has been amazing and has made us feel very safe and much more free to be able to walk/jog/play/scoot/cycle around the park. There is no noise or air pollution from the cars and all in all makes for a very pleasant and safe environment for all. Please don't reopen it to traffic through the main area. If you need car parks to allow for further afield visitors then please use your wealth of expertise to plan for this around the outer areas. Many thanks
121 Camilla BH15 2LA I regularly run through the park and under keyhole bridge and have really enjoyed being able to do Andrews this more freely without the worry of cars. I also walk my children and dog through the park and I 62 would like it to remain as it currently is. This is the same for birds hill and tatnam road closures.
122 Kerry Friend BH189NR Please leave barriers between whitecliff and Poole park , makes for a safer route for people enjoying the park
123 Dr Chris BH14 8QS I work at Poole I use this route to walk and cycle to work everyday and the reduction in cars using the bridge is Davies Hospital significantly safer for pedestrians and cyclists. It is a dangerous route for people to use as a cut through in vehicles, barely wide enough for big cars, which was happening before. This is a time to increase people's physical activity and the measures put in place have helped with this by improving safety, and should be maintained regardless of Covid
124 Theresa BH10 5AT We can no longer continue to sacrifice the future of all for the convenience of a few. Low carbon Mcmanus active travel must become the primary mode of transport/travel around our conurbation in order to effectively combat climate change and reduce our dire air pollution.
125 Rebecca BH15 2LS Teacher I walk my dog herald bring my children to this park and the number of near misses by traffic, I have Cooper seen, are countless. It became a cut through and people drove thoughtlessly and quickly on their dash home. I cannot see any possible benefit of reopening this entrance and I fully believe the park should be fully pedestrianised. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
126 Tom Espley BH151JP Delighted with the closure of keyhole bridge to vehicles. It is so much safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists
127 Hayley BH12 2BA Keep it closed. You're a council who prioritises cars and it is truly terrible, this is one of the good active travel measures to promote walking. Do more like this! Stop inviting driving by making it easy for Cara, start inviting active travel by making it easier to cycle and walk instead. Make it more difficult for people to drive and they will stop!
128 Toby Reeves BH24 1AR There is no need for cars to have access at the pedestrian and cyclists expense. Having just pedestrian access will reduce traffic to those that live in the surrounding areas and for those accessing the parks surrounding the area making it a safer and more enjoyable place to be.
129 Andrew BH16 6DP Please keep this road closed to motor vehicles. It is much safer, and therefore more pleasant, to Woods cycle in this part of the park without cars going through the arch.
130 Alan Card BH148PG I am a regular commuter and leisure cyclist who uses this route often. I have noticed the benefits of
63 closing this bridge to motor vehicles. The first impression is that pedestrians and cyclists are more relaxed and enjoying the environment without having to worry about motor vehicles. I personally benefit from this and also have noticed more families with young children taking their children out on bikes. I see this as a real benefit for the future. I applaud the efforts the council are making to support getting people out of cars. Let’s not lose the gains that have been made.
131 Nick Johnson BH15 1BQ I prefer that the narrow railway tunnel should be kept as a pedestrian access - if it is decided to reopen it to vehicles, some kind of traffic light control should be installed to protect people on foot
132 Mike Chalkley BH9 2UJ Please don't remove this, it's vital to reducing traffic.
133 Peter Short DT11 9FN Keep the pedestrianisation please
134 Ros Woollin BH14 9NL It is so much safer to walk with no cars under key hole bridge. It is especially relevant now with so many more people walking and needing to stay at distance. We need to encourage more people to take exercise not make the experience difficult. We also need to reduce the number of cars trying to take short cuts into Poole.
135 Denise Hill BH18 9NF Unnecessary expence No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
136 Laura BH15 1LS The bridge should remain closed. Traffic shouldn’t be encouraged to use Poole park as a cut through. The bridge isn’t really suitable for modern cars to pass through nor is there adequate safe provision for pedestrians
137 S P Haines BH16 6DA N/A This is not an essential route for vehicles, there are good alternatives. It is however a good route for pedestrians, cyclists and the disabled, but if open to vehicles difficult to negotiate safely. In my view this closure should be retained and certainly not prematurely aborted before the full trial period.
138 K. Moore BH15 2AH The closure of this road has made it safe for walkers, cyclists and wheel chair users. I fail to understand why it it necessary to reopen it. It is far too narrow for cars nowadays, causes congestion and puts pedestrians at risk
139 Alex King BH14 0QD Dear Sir/Madam, This second Consultation seems unnecessary given the evidence of the first however here is a submission. 64 Of all the info and appendixes, I cannot see any reason to remove this measure. Overwhelmingly BH14 residents have greatly enjoyed this intervention, removing it for the convinience of a few, over the benefits to many shows extremely limited consideration of the bigger picture, additionally keeping will greatly enhance the upcoming Tranche 2 ATF Whitecliff scheme. Details from the first set of consultations:- Appendix C shows that accessibility issues would be greatly impacted, there isnt even a footway wide enough for a wheelchair there. Which effectively prohibits all disabled users NOT in a car. "The decision to remove the closure has both negative and positive impacts on different user types. However the decision may be regarded as negative overall" Appendix D, Decision Impact shows all negative or minimal effects and no green benefits. Of the formal ETRO responses (223) only 35 were objections 128 in support (57%) Opening this has linked Poole Park and Whitecliff in a time when public health and well being is under spotlight even more and given a much improved park. Having incremental reduction in motor traffic is part of the BCP longer term aims through the Eco strategy- and not only BCP- an integral element of the Conservative Gvt 'Gear Change' agenda. Mr Greene- BCP are making great strides on elements of transport governance, ref Parking policy, continue this leadership with leaving this measure in place, an urban parkland is not a through No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) route of convinience, its a destination place for all of our well being. Residents of the future will thank you for listening. Regards, Alex King
140 Amir Sadeh The principle of the Bournemouth Parks is the right one - no through traffic. Poole Park should not be denied the same protections. This narrow access is barely suitable for cars. As a learner driver many years ago I was taken here once and instructed to sound my horn to alert any oncoming vehicles - hardly desirable in a park and residential area. There are perfectly suitable main roads which can be used by motor vehicles, opening this access up just provides a short cut for the impatient with no benefit to the wider community. Please respect the original formal consultation that met the relevant statutory tests and reinstate this ETRO. 65 Thank you.
141 Don Nutt BH13 7PG This scheme has been running now for just a few months and has already shown how valuable ( and essential) such changes are in this conurbation if the powers that be are to have any chance whatsoever of controlling the traffic problems of the area. Not only that but the beneficial change for pedestrians and cyclists has attracted an extraordinary increase in use- exactly as the Government, the NHS, and dare I say it, all local political parties wish to see. While you are at it please also stop through traffic in Poole Park.
142 Andy BH14 0HJ N/A I strongly believe that the current trial of pedestrianizing the road under Keyhole Bridge in Poole Hannaford Park should be made permanent for the following reasons: • This road is an obvious danger spot for drivers as only one car can pass through at a time without any visibility of any other traffic coming from the opposite direction • This road is often significantly flooded during wet periods to such an extent that for very small vehicles it can be impassable • The pathway through for pedestrians is extremely narrow, and therefore dangerous, when cars are permitted to use this road at the same time. (I have personally experienced some nerve- No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) wracking moments single-handedly attempting to negotiate this route on foot with my three daughters when walking from Whitecliff Park to Poole Park- a popular walking route for us) • The closure of this route to cars would reduce minimise the use of Poole Park as a thoroughfare for commuters which can only improve Poole Park socially and environmentally.
143 Colin Byrne BH15 3SH Keep keyhole bridge closed to motor traffic. A park should not be a through route or a short cut for cars or vans. It’s seems strange to have a 2nd consultation, at short notice.
144 Paul M Turner BH13 6AR I used the Keyholes Bridge yesterday. I cycled to Poole hospital from Branksome Park yesterday. I try to cycle everywhere if possible, Westbourne, Bournemouth, Merrick Park, Boscombe, and Hengistbury head. Walking and cycling are friendly activities rather than the polluting cars and trucks There were a lot of walkers some cyclists and lots of children with scooters and buggies yesterday. I know that the residents at BH14 are pleased to have the freedom of no car no cars going through this
66 bridge. The residents are please do use this bridge so we do not need another consultation.( I am a resident of Lindsay Road, BH13 6AR, I am disabled and over 70). It is a green solution to close the bridge and have walking and cycling only. BCP have plans reducing the traffic and lorries two main routes rather than this bridge. The government are committed to walking and cycling rather than use motor vehicles. Why change it to BCP local agenda particularly because local people are for it? As it resident in BCP I want to keep the Keyholes Bridge closed to stop Motor vehicles using it.
145 Emma Fairhall BH12 3DH My husband and I regularly walk in Whitecliff and Poole Park with our dog. We have previously struggled due to having a pushchair, as cars always come hurtling towards us under the bridge when we are walking, with many of them having to reverse. We felt extremely vulnerable when walking through the bridge with the cars, but more recently, it has been a delight and much more leisurely walk. It has also been much easier for social distancing, including when we have walked on both the Whitecliff and Poole Park side of the bridge, as we could quickly walk onto the road due to no/limited traffic, so we could social distance from other people. After visiting my friend in Bath 1.5 years ago and visiting their main park, I was amazed at how busy, family friendly it was with people walking, cycling and children playing safely. Many of the people were able to walk on the road as part of this park was closed to through traffic. We have realised the benefit of having a No Through road at Poole Park-Whitecliff, to stop people from No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) using it as a rat run and instead utilising the parks for what they are for - leisure, relaxation and exercise. Whereby, you can still access the park through a number of entrances, but not use it as a road as part of your journey.
146 Chris Dolan BH14 8JQ Opening up the road would be an appalling regressive action. I have lived in Lilliput for nearly 50 years and the pedestrianisation of the tunnel was a godsend. Please do not kill, injure or frighten people but opening it up. It damage vehicles - which was common in the past as it is horrible to use as a vehicular thoroughfare. Thank you
147 Luigi Manzo BH152QL Please keep the bridge close for cars. Cars represent a danger for people and kids using the park to play, cycle and other things that parks are really for!
148 David Bruce BH6 3HL This closure is on the route I cycle to work from Southbourne to Poole hospital. As a doctor I often work long stressful tiring days. Anything that makes the bike journey safer is really important to me.
67 I hope this closure stays in place and more measures are put in place across BCP so that I'm not limited to the seafront as a safe commuting route, with all its seasonal limitations.
149 Karl BH11QZ I believe this entrance should remain closed to motorised vehicles and be a safe entrance to Poole park for walkers, families and cyclists.
150 Melanie Cooke BH15 3PX Far prefer the closure. Poole park is a safer environment for people and animals alike. The only purpose or reason people would want this reopened is for a cut through. The other entrances cater for all other requirements (parking, The Kitchen, The Ark etc. ).
151 Gabrielle BH15 1HS I would like to see Keyhole bridge reopened to vehicles. There is no valid reason to keep it closed. Naish It has always been a shared space, car drivers have to approach it slowly and give way to pedestrians and cyclists which is the best way forward. I find that at the moment, cyclists go tearing through with little regard for others. Please reopen it.
152 Sarah BH21 5BS The change has made it so much safer for riding, walking and dogs. Please maintain the pass as pedestrians only No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
153 Tom Kelly BH10 7JS Poole Hospital It is mentioned that this short term consultation is needed because the scheme "installed at pace bike users with limited consultation". Well surely you are trying to remove the scheme under exactly the same group conditions!! This is a scheme that has encouraged a huge amount of people to get off the sofa and get active. Safely riding around Baiter to Poole park is invaluable for young people and those perhaps a bit wary of local roads. And to state that the road will become more dangerous due to cyclists using it is absurd. Do the right thing and, not only keep the scheme in place, but extend it. Leave your cars at home!
154 Joe O'keefe BH21 3LB LV GI Please leave this as pedestrianised
155 Ken Robins BH15 1TR I would like no vehicle access but modification to slow cyclists.
156 Keithmason BH153RF The people Why must we shut roads down and grid lock main roads, Where is BCP comman sence.
157 W Richard BH15 1TP The survey showed a huge majority in favour of keeping the bridge closed. If the decision is to 68 Jones open the bridge what was the point of the survey? On what basis is this decision made? The council cannot ignore the views of the public.
158 Robin BH148HD Closing this road does little to stop through traffic in Poole Park, as traffic will still exit the park near Rennison the model boat pool and travel along Twemlow Avenue to Sandbanks Road, where they encounter a dangerous exit onto this road. Sadly, not everyone is fit enough to walk, cycle, scoot or skateboard to their Park. As to the spurious safety arguments for closure, I have heard of no serious accident at that bridge in the 65 years I have lived in the area. If any traffic control is needed at this point, I would suggest a traffic light restriction system would solve any alleged problem. In my opinion a more necessary safety measure required in the area of this bridge would be to further restrict parking on Whitecliff Road. I am strongly in favour of reopening the Keyhole Bridge to car traffic with a possible width restriction.
159 Michele BH14 8DU Whitecliff Over the weekend I learnt via social media that you are considering opening keyhole bridge on Beesley Harbourside Whitecliff Rd, despite overwhelming public support to keep it closed. Volunteers I live nearby and also started and manage Whitecliff Harbourside Volunteers, we litter pick and try to keep the park tide. Since the closure there has been a marked increase in pedestrian/cyclist traffic between the two parks (Whitecliff and Poole) this is exactly what the etro was designed to No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) do. The bridge is very narrow and there is no disability access via the pavement so on every level it would make sense keeping it closed. It’s better for health fitness and the environment as shown in the uplift of use Like many others I see no justification for it to be opened again and would appreciate this being kept closed Regards Michele Beesley
160 Thea Downey BH14 9QG I would prefer the keyhole bridge to remain closed to traffic
161 William Lane BH151QX Wessex Keep the Keyhole for cyclists and pedestrians. Speed limit for road users in Poole Park should Newfoundland also be reduced to 5 mph or 10 mph giving a safer play area for children Society
162 Harriet BH12 2JQ I've enjoyed being able to walk and cycle freely through the keyhole bridge without having to wait
69 Stewart-Jones for cars to pass. Also enjoyed fewer cars in the Park in general
163 Carolyn Fulker BH140LY I would like the bridge to stay closed as it is so much safer for our children when walking or riding their bikes and reduce dangerous traffic going through the park.
164 Leo Fung BH2 5LJ Keeping the park safe for children from unnesscary traffic.
165 Barbara BH14 9ET Stopping cars going through the keyhole bridge improves things for pedestrians and cyclists. I Leonard have had a couple of narrow misses as a pedestrian and limited vision makes it dangerous as a car driver too. The barrier should remain.
166 Andy Storey BH14 9HP Prendas I am in the park daily, and this new measure has been a dramatic improvement in terms of safety Ciclismo for ALL users of the park. With motorised traffic often spilling into the park when local roads were busy, especially when road maintenance is underway, this created a safer environment either on foot or on a bicycle.
I live in Broadstone and work in Parkstone and commute to work every day (inc. during the pandemic) either via bicycle or running. Whilst my route in the mornings always includes Poole Park, in the evenings, I often tended to avoid it as it was busy with motor traffic of non-park users. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) The other added advantage is by using the park, it reduces the pressure on the shared path along Whitecliff, which can get very congested which often leads to conflict.
I am aware that this measure comes at some inconvenience to some residents of surrounding roads, but surely there comes a point when the safety of all BCP residents/visitors is of greater priority to the convenience of a few. I am also aware that this is something of a political hot potato, but keeping this measure in place could be a real step-change for the park.
Regarding the antinodal evidence of speeding cyclists, there are a number of engineering solutions to potentially slow cyclists down after the hill, just like there are some employed within the park to slow motor vehicles, but if the closure goes ahead these cannot be attempted. Another reason for the removal was the mention of motorcyclists taking advantage of the closure, but they were doing so illegally, so that is a matter for the Police to investigate if the registration plate numbers are available. 70 Additionally, the bridge is often flooded in the Winter and during high-tides, which prevents on user's ability to access the park, if closed permanently the height of the road could be increased to allow dry passage. I do feel strongly that anything we can do to help enable people (that are able) to be less reliant on cars can only be a good thing for our generation, but more importantly, for future generations to come.
167 Jennifer Rocha BH15 2QN I strongly oppose the removal of the temporary closure. I use this daily for my exercise routine and the closure allows safer passage due to covid. If it were opened, cars would be using it forcing people to congregate either side waiting to get through, these people include runners, walkers, cyclists and dog walkers. The passage is meant to give pedestrians and cyclists priority, however this is never the case when cars use it.
168 Chrissie BH14 0LQ The park is so much more useable and safer without / or less traffic. Social distancing is vertically Lefkon impossible with the roads open too. Please shut as many roads at possible in the park.
169 Michael Cure BH15 2LN N/a I am in favour of the road closure staying in place and would be in support of further traffic restrictions in the public park, The intended purpose of which, isn't to give relief for busy roads. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
170 John Stagg BH16 5RA Retired I strongly support the retention of the barriers that prevent the vehicular access through the narrow Engineer railway tunnel in Whitecliff Road. The rat run through the Park should be prevented and consideration given to restrictions in nearby residential roads the provide an alternative to the tunnel route such as a point closure at the junction of Whitecliff Road / Twemlow Av.
171 Robert Carr Should remain car free. I have had too many near misses with cars as a pedestrian and a cyclist
172 Harry Mcaulay BH148AN NA I wish the key hole bridge to remain closed to traffic apart from cyclists and pedestrians
173 Jason BH14 0NA I believe the bridge is better closed and the need to keep it so will intensify. There is a significant amount of residential development around the perimeter of the park designed for young people, key workers and single households. These people need safe and healthy green space for recreation. The stress of traffic in the park has been alleviated by the closure of the bridge and people have adapted to this as an improvement and an added space. People have spread out and made to naturally accommodate each other, there is more room for families, runners and cyclists 71 with the bridge closed. Much study and monitoring has been done regarding the main lagoon in the park, it is becoming increasingly important for birds, as a fish nursery and important asset to the nature of Poole Harbour. Bournemouth University have done great work in deepening the understanding of the value of the park to the wider harbour in terms of nature. Vehicular stress has an impact on this, the less cars the better in this regard. Given BCP has made a number of commitments to low carbon, Poole Park should evolve as a place that showcases and supports this commitment and supports the residents in providing safe active travel routes and places of refuge from the congestion of our roads. Please leave the bridge closed to cars and support positive change.
174 Sophia BH14 8DD Please don’t re-open this road. It has always been incredibly dangerous for Singleton walkers/cyclists/runners, finally we’ve changed that, let’s not go backwards.
175 Howard BH14 8EJ N/A I am very local to the keyhole bridge and use it regularly. There is limited inconvenience for car Brierley drivers but this is hugely outweighed by the increased safety for pedestrians/runners/cyclists. This has also undoubtedly increased the number of people of all ages using the Whitecliff and Poole Park area. This should be a primary objective going forward for a forward thinking local authority. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
176 James BH151QG The road closure needs to stay. It is much safer for pedestrians, children and the mobility impaired Skipworth to cross between white cliff and Poole park. Maybe splitting the lane with cyclists on one side and pedestrians on the other. Access for vehicles to the park through orchard avenue is safer as the roads are wider. Please keep the keyhole bridge closure for the good of all residents.
177 Susan Gilbert BH14 8AN I think the Whitecliff bridge should remain closed as it is safer for pedestrians and seems to discourage traffic from the park which is better for all park users. Cyclists should be asked to dismount as there is limited visibility and some go through at quite a speed. I have seen quite a few inconsiderate cyclists and near misses.
178 Martin Barker BH15 3QJ I am amazed that anyone is thinking of re-opening Keyhole bridge to cars. As a walker I often go that way and have noticed a huge increase in the number of people using it. Only yesterday I saw two Families with pushchairs, dog walkers, a gentleman on a mobility scooter and several cyclists just in the short time it took me to go through. Surely this is a better use than that of a rat run for impatient drivers
72 179 Bella Weedon BH15 2LL NHS This road should never be reopened. It is lovely being able to go for safe bike rides with my family and walking through the park with less cars around. My son has learned to ride his bike here and about road safety which has been possible with less traffic. There are far more people on foot now therefore no need to reopen and encourages more people to be stay on foot.
180 Babs BH14 8EJ Cars should be allowed to use this entrance to Poole Park. In my 74 years I have never heard of Plumbridge an accident with a car. BUT cyclists now spreed down the hill on Whitecliff Road and walkers have to jump out of the way !!!! . No problems with cars, we were all polite and careful
181 Alex Sketcher BH12 1PZ It seems ludicrous to reopen, it’s a rat run! So much safer for walkers/families etc
182 Lee Atkins BH152HQ This bridge needs to be open to all traffic, it's always been open and should continue to be open to all. A lot of elderly and disabled use this entrance to the park.
183 David Stock BH12 2BB It's always been mad to allow vehicular traffic through that bridge - we finally get to a place where we've removed that danger to pedestrians and other users, and now you want to re-open it? The No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) bridge is barely wide enough for modern vehicles, which often pass through at too high a speed and with wing mirrors overhanging the footway, for example. The bridge is a valuable link between two green spaces and there are other options for routes for motor vehicles. We should be doing as much as possible to implement central Govt policies including around active travel, and this decision would fly in the face of that imperative, all for a very small benefit for a small number of residents.
184 Peter Steer BH148DU If the bridge is to be closed to traffic then the floor level should be raised to allow access at all tide/weatyherr times and stagger railings should be erected at each side of the bridge to prevent cyclists or scooters driving straight through.
185 Carole BH15 2ED Absolutely delighted with the decision Norman The right thing to do . Andrews Fair access for all Thank you 73
186 Gerald BH15 2ED This bridge needs to be kept open to help improve road use efficiency. Also it allows a more direct Andrews route for us who cannot cycle and have difficulty walking, in that I no longer inconvenience other residents by having to drive through a convoluted system adding to their noise and pollution. Some traffic lights with a pedestrian only timer could help. Cyclists need to dismount as they are currently going through with disregard for each other or pedestrians. Thankyou.
187 Kathryn BH15 2ED Closing Keyhole Bridge/Whitecliffe Road causes more traffic on Twemlow Avenue and surrounding Lambert roads. This will especially be the case once the tourist season starts. This appears to the the problem with many other road closures - just moving traffic to/through other areas - Tatnum Road being a good example. However, some closures work very well.
188 Ruth Wharton BH14 8SF Please keep this route blocked to road vehicles. I regularly run, walk and cycle through here and it's a joy to have this safe route available for exercise. It's really well used and I always see people using it. With increased numbers of people using our parks and open spaces without this closure it would make access to Poole Park for leisure and exercise more difficult. It also links Poole Park with Whitecliff for a circular route.
189 Marion Burton BH21 1 RW The closure of this bridge to traffic has had a significant impact on Poole Park. I really appreciate the increased calm brought about by the reduction in traffic and how much safer it is not to be No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) worrying about motorists who were blatantly using the road through the park and under the railway bridge as a rat run. The reopening of this route to cars will detract from our beautiful public open space and once again endanger people on foot and bicycles.
190 Francesca BH15 2ED I believe the decision to reopen Key Hole Bridge is a sensible one. I think this because it reduces traffic on the B3369 road which at peak times exerts extreme pressures on the local residents. In addition, it is to my knowledge that the bridge was originally closed to encourage cycling, however the correlation is unclear. I don’t believe that road closures that have been implemented in Poole at present have had any effect on encouraging greater cycling rates. Rather it moves the issue to another location, causing new levels of noise pollution and disharmony for the local population. Furthermore, a large proportion of cyclists are beginning to pose as a hazard with clear disregard for rules of the road and consciousness of pedestrians. Therefore an accident waiting to happen. At the moment they appear lawless creating further conflict.
191 Laura Phelps BH12 4PN I object to the closure. Prior to closure, as a care company we used this route to take our elderly clients for outings during
74 their two hour sit. Since the closure we longer can take them to their usual routes and locations.
192 Iain Murray BH15 1RF The ETRO at Keyhole Bridge has to be considered a complete success. I don't know if there has been any assessment of traffic, but I've personally witnessed more people using it during the trial period than I can remember at any other time. Prior to lockdown I drove through most days on my commute. I also dog walk through there most days. While it is arguably a mild inconvenience, (i.e. no longer having the option to drive through) being able to walk through safely with my dogs is fantastic. My son is disabled with limited mobility and is blind. He would refuse to walk through previously as he was terrified of it, mainly due to the number of times I've had to hurry him along because a car was coming. He is now able to access this route. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to take evasive action to avoid being hit, or witnessed a car driving through recklessly, making me think how lucky it was that there weren't any pedestrians at that time. This route was clearly not designed for cars, so for the safety of everyone and to improve transport links, it makes absolute sense to keep Keyhole Bridge closed to traffic. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
193 Diane Brierley BH14 8EJ N/A As a local resident who walks, runs and cycles around Whitecliff Rec and Poole Park on almost a daily basis I have really enjoyed going through the Keyhole bridge feeling safe from cars and vans. Many went through too quickly putting other users at risk and at times there was a queue of cars waiting to drive through, many deciding they had priority to go through first. This is a very popular pedestrian route and in use constantly throughout the day by a wide range of people including dog walkers, people going to and from work and many for leisure purposes. I appreciate that people in vehicles have to find another route but I have not noticed more traffic on Sandbanks Road or queues as a result of the Keyhole bridge being blocked off. I have also driven from Poole in the early evening and the traffic is not any busier than usual. By reducing traffic flow through the Keyhole bridge has also reduced traffic through Poole Park, which is also much better and safer for families and other users. I have noticed an increase in people using this area since last year's first lockdown so it is important to encourage people to continue to enjoy this beautiful area. Reduced traffic means less pollution which also has to be an advantage for all users.
75 i would urge you to keep the current pedestrian / cycle access only arrangement.
194 John BH23 3HW If people can cycle safely they will leave their cars at home and take less space on the road Grantham helping to ease congestion. We would all benefit if people drove less and walked or cycled more. Please make it safer so people have a real choice. https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/six-reasons-build-cycle-lanes
195 Paul Bradbury BH15 1QH The closure of the keyhole bridge to traffic has been a great experiment and should continue. This a busy thoroughfare between Whitecliff/Baiter and Poole Park for runners, walkers, cyclists, dogs. We have to start making choices in priority of these modes of life, and over and against cars for environmental reasons and for the wellbeing of residents. In this case the argument for maintaining car access is slim, there are plenty of available routes and the closure prevents the park being used as a rat run between Old Town and the Sandbanks Rd.
196 Gill Clarke BH140QS none I strongly feel that the keyhole bridge should be reopened to traffic. It was closed for 'Covid Social distancing' purposes according to a large red roadsign, but it did not achieve that aim at all. I had never known any problems there, with pedestrians, cyclists and cars, over 50 years.
197 Adrian Parr BH14 9EP n/a Poole Park has been so much more enjoyable with the reduced traffic due to the closure of the road through the keyhole bridge. Please don't reopen it to traffic. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
198 James Killick BH15 1DA I am in favour of the closure at keyhole bridge.
199 Michelle BH15 1NB It is so much safer and more pleasurable using keyhole bridge with out traffic that use it as a rat Collier run. There are plenty of places for cars not enough for pedestrians. Keep it closed to traffic reduce danger pollution. Look after the environment.
200 Peter Andrews BH151UN PLEASE dont open this narrow bridge to cars - the portfolio holder needs to live up to his name, do the right (non-political) thing, and not pamper, Trump like, to the many lazy car drivers. C'mon man have a spine, show some leadership !!!!
201 Pam Jones BH151TP I think it is wrong that the majority decision against reopening keyhole bridge from the online survey appears to be ignored in the delegated decision. Poole Park has been enhanced by the closing of keyhole bridge to vehicles and I strongly support the continuation of that policy.
202 Pete Godding BH148AW Keeping the keyhole bridge closed prevents Poole park from becoming a rat run. If an alternative scheme could prevent a rat run then my opinion could change. 76 203 Paul Maclester BH151TP Poole park was SO much better in lockdown 1 without ANY cars. Opening the link to Whitecliff just gives a 'rat-route' for lazy car drivers to take through the park. (Thankfully its not wide enough for SUV's) . Keep it closed traffic. I live opposite and locals are not effected, as there is plenty of alternative access to surrounding roads. I mostly see visitors blindly following their sat-navs getting lost! While you are at it PLEASE prioritise pedestrian crossings as THE rights of way, even though I drive its crazy that in the park (and in urban areas) as cars always have 'right of way'. Many more zebra crossings all over BCP would help. Thanks Paul Maclester Kingland Road
204 Kevin Eaton BH15 2DT N/A I do not agree with the temporary closure of the Whitecliff Road ETRO bridge between the Boating lake and Whitecliff. It serves no practical purpose, only to hinder traffic flow. I have never seen or heard of any accidents in my 45 years of driving, apart from a vehicle getting flooded when trying to negotiate this bridge when there was a high tide. I believe that the courteous nature shown between the pedestrians and car drivers results in a harmonious flow. This ETRO and the others in the Poole town area should never have been implemented, and subsequent articles on the No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) national press indicate that the government are also not happy with the blatant disregard with which councils are abusing their powers. This introduction has nothing to do with the Covid crisis and will not affect the way in which the normal resident commutes around the BCP area for either work, shopping or recreational activities. These roads are thorough fares and provide access from one area to another. Whilst we all agree that some roads on the Poole area require introduction of traffic calming, blocking off roads is not the answer. As this just pushes the problem somewhere else with increased pressure on these roads. You cannot take the unilateral decision to stop people from using their vehicles under the guise of trying to make them use cycles. We all know that we need to reduce our carbon emissions and the introduction of electric vehicles will help with this.
205 Justine He BH14 0QH Although we have used keyhole Bridge with car, it's much safer for the park users if it remains close. I therefore request it stays closed permanently.
206 Teresa Brown BH15 1RE I find it difficult to believe that BCP Intend to re open keyhole bridge to traffic. This is a notoriously dangerous stretch of road ... any
77 accidents being avoided by complete luck. It has been really wonderful to use this route without anxiety for adults with their children , dog walkers etc. As a very local resident I absolutely implore you to keep this route free from motor traffic so that we can still enjoy our wonderful walking opportunities here.
207 Richard BH148DU Closure was been a great step forward for walkers, cyclists , park users & residents, Popper
208 Chris Smith BH189NX Since the keyhole bridge has been shut at I have seen the benefits to those using and living nearby. I like in Broadstone but both cycle and run alongside Parkstone Bay and Whiltecliff. This change in the bridge allows for safer use of the paths, avoids cars using it as a rat run and was the best closure BCP made under the Covid changes. The area has become nice to use and more relaxing. I would ask that it remains as I have not seen any subsequent rise in the diverted traffic along Sandbanks Road.
209 Carolyn Reece BH14 8EF Although I used to drive through the park a lot, I believe it should not be a road, and it was much better with no cars. The closure of the bridge reduces traffic using it as a way to get from a to b, as No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) i used to do. Due to the bridge closure I tend to cycle rather than drive, and the park is much safer for children, cyclists, older people wheelchair users etc. Please keep it shut
210 Jonathan Terry BH17 8BX Please do not remove as it makes it safer to use the park for me and my children
211 Caroline Sims BH123BS This road should be kept open for all including cars. The link between the 2 parks must be accessible to everyone.
212 Mary Scott BH 15 1YE The closure of the bridge has resulted in traffic forced onto other roads causing hold ups and traffic jams and quiet roads having excess usage. Cyclists have been using the road coming down into the bridge as a race track far more dangerous than cars to pedestrians as they have to travel slowly due to the width.
213 A.J.Richardso BH15 4DP The keyhole bridge tunnel at Whitecliff should definitely remain closed to vehicular traffic, for which n it is totally unsuitable. 78 214 Bob Salter BH152QN N/a I use this route regularly, both walking and cycling, with my children, or on my own. I strongly support the existing measures to close the road to vehicular traffic. My reasoning is that having traffic restricted through the bridge makes it a much safer and more pleasant environment. My pushchair has been clipped by a passing car’s wing mirror once when I was walking beneath the bridge, and my children have been intimidated by oncoming cars when they have been cycling through the bridge. I thank the council for the measures they have put in place - it would be a regressive step to remove them.
215 Susie Grainger BH52BT This bridge should be permanently closed to all vehicles. It’s narrow pathways are a serious danger to pedestrians especially those with small children going to visit the helicopter play park
216 John Grainger BH52BT Please don’t reopen the bridge. I have three small grandchildren that I take to the playground but have to go under the bridge. The footpath is totally inadequate so that makes our walk under the bridge dangerous
217 Susie Grainger BH52BT Walking under the bridge with small grandchildren is extremely dangerous with traffic driving through at the same time. Please keep it closed for traffic No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
218 Julia Taylor BH15 2QL I am in support of the continued closure of keyhole bridge to traffic. I believe the benefits out way any negatives. Safety is increased for walkers, families and the disabled. Any improvements to infrastructure that helps with reduction in car car usage should be encouraged. Reduction in pollution levels in our lovely park are a huge positive. We will need to continue with social distancing for the foreseeable future and enabling free movement of pedestrians, cyclists is important and the closure of the bridge facilitates this. Wellness and fitness is so important and closure of the bridge encourages us all to have access to the park and it’s facilities. I have witnessed great community spirit by the many people that use this access. Please keep it closed to motor traffic.
79 Thank you
219 Debbie BH14 8RJ Having the bridge blocked off from vehicles has been so pleasant for so many. Keeping it that way Beamish just inconveniences a few who are just trying to beat the traffic along sandbanks road. Please keep bridge closed off to vehicles.
220 Graham Small BH14 8RJ I live in the close vicinity - removing vehicle access has created a safe pedestrian connection between the park and Whitecliff. I don’t know any locals who have said this was a bad idea and it does not make sense to return to allowing vehicle access going against the green credentials of the park area.
221 Amy Lewis BH12 4LE I am in favour of keeping this as a pedestrianised pathway. Safety is key. Residents are encouraged to use this area with young children and dogs with no right of way or substantial footpath. So the less that cars squeeze through, or use it as a wacky races short cut would be beneficial and in the long term, the most sensible decision.
222 David Law BH12 2AG Taking into account the opinions expressed in the consultations and the fact that the majority are in favour of preventing cars from accessing white cliffe road from the railway bridge I support that majority decision No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
223 Gareth BH9 2JZ I fully support the ETRO and closure of the keyhole bridge to motorised traffic. As a parent of 3 Llewellyn children, I am a frequent user of both Poole Park and Whitecliff Park, and having a safe route between the two for pedestrians and cyclists has been great. When not in lockdown we have elderly family members visit who like to use both parks, but have never felt comfortable walking through the bridge as they simply can't get out of the way of cars quickly. The route is not suitable for cars and simply makes the road unsafe for all other users.
224 Susan Payne BH15 2QN I am in support of the keyhole bridge remaining closed to cars. It is much safer now to go under the bridge as a pedestrian or cyclist and the part of the park by the boating lake is much quieter, safer and pleasanter. If the bridge is opened again it will make social distancing much more difficult in that area for pedestrians.
225 Lauren Bishop BH14 9AQ I'm wondering if I may have read this wrong, as it appears that the decision is being taken to REMOVE the scheme, which can't possibly be the case based on the evidence published? I hope I have indeed misunderstood. If I haven't, this is utterly ridiculous. All the evidence presented 80 suggests keeping the scheme in place would be the best course of action and that it would be utterly against the desired, wishes and best interests of the local residents (let alone the environment etc) to remove it. Surely the council should be embarrassed to be publishing a decision to remove alongside all such evidence? It makes me emabsrrased to live in the area frankly. If the council wants the public to be able to place any respect or trust whatsoever in it, you NEED to do the right thing. Listen to us, look at all the impacts, and act accordingly. It'll be nothing but a disgrace if you don't. Regards, Lauren Bishop, 4a Sandbanks Road
226 Richard BH12 2BE I want the bridge to stay closed and the kerb to be dropped on the south side. We have an 8 month Douglas old in a pram and want to be able to use Poole and Whitecliff Parks and have enjoyed doing so this year, but wouldn't consider using the keyhole if it was opened to traffic again. People were always using it as a rat run and shooting through when we were just the two of us. I've also enjoyed running through the parks in the summer, but wouldn't go as far Whitecliff when having to dodge traffic as well. We also took my gran out in a wheelchair on Xmas Day and did a circuit around Poole Park and under the subway and back through the keyhole. She wouldn't have been able to do the route back without it. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
227 Caro BH149HG Always easy to cycle or walk through, I’ve done for over 30 yrs. Just take turns with cars. Be reasonable and keep it open. So walk , scoot, cycle, run or drive. Keep open and keep accessible for all
228 Sarah Murray BH15 1RF Since Keyhole bridge has been closed, I have thoroughly enjoyed walking with my dogs and my children knowing that we will be safe. The visibility for cars driving through is horrendous, and people drive through much too fast. I cannot imagine why it would make sense to open it to traffic again!
229 Christine BH153RZ I strongly disagree with the removal of the bollards. The access for both pedestrians; those with Smith limited mobility and the safe travel for cyclist via this route outways any removal of the bollards. The route has been much busier now that pedestrians and cyclist know it's a safe route to access both Poole Park and Whitecliff Park without motor cars.
230 Karen Hancok BH15 2ED Do not agree with the closure. Rad traffic and foot users have used this area for over 40 years without issue. They provide access to local areas by local residents without increased traffic on 81 main roads. Feel this is another way of the council imposing it's views and by using covid 19 rules ignoring the public
231 Sarah BH14 0LY I also work for Well. What can I say. This is totally ridiculous and I’m assuming the person making this decision Wilkinson Bcp either lives on the only road with initial additional traffic or is taking some kind of “benefit “ for such a sudden change. I run every morning and walk every lunch time through the park. It’s as busy but with the traffic making it a safe place to enjoy. I can NOT believe that you’d reverse such a benefit as you’ll gain no financial benefit. I’d really like to understand the rationale behind the decision as I can’t see it. Aren’t we suppose to be working to support the environment?? Leave as is as it’s working !!
232 Alix Digby- BH15 4RB I actually can't believe that despite a 6 month consultation which has brought support of this West closure, that that is being disregarded, and a new survey done, in what looks like an act to try to overturn that survey. How is this right? I have heard more comments of support about how this closure has enabled access for people who would not normally be able to. When I first heard about this closure, I was personally disappointed, as I have valued driving through Poole Park enjoying the view. But I would rather have a view to enjoy thanks to the reduction of emissions. All traffic calming measures need to be implemented alongside improved No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) public transport, but what are we going to do? Wait for that investment and continue polluting our beautiful place?
233 Valerie Nelson BH14 8AN I really welcome the closure. The roads are quieter and safer. Better for our health. Encourages more walking and cycling in a car dominated town. Important to take all steps we can to tackle climate change. Also more and more likely to flood in future anyway.
234 Nicola Collins BH152QU We have 2 young children and use this road nearly every day to take them out for exercise on their bikes/ walk. Since this road has been closed we have found it so much safer, our youngest only being 3. The blind spots and difficultly seeing what is coming in the past has made us not be able to use it. Now that it is closed we enjoy using it safely, gives social distancing and so much better environment around the area. Please keep it closed. It’s used as a short cut, just use the direct route instead.
235 Hannah BH152LH Please don't open the keyhole bridge again. It has been SO lovely having the park for us, for our Tooley children to ride their bikes and run free. It is so important for us to have space to just be without the worry of traffic. The world needs this too, We must not let cars dominate. Lets use then as a tool 82 but lets enjoy were we live. DON' T REOPEN THE BRIDGE. DO LET US HAVE A BEAUTIFUL CAR FREE PARK.
236 Chris Stevens BH6 3JW My grandchildren live on Whitecliff road. I use the route regularly when taking them to Poole Park. When open the route is “an accident waiting to happen”. When open for cars,it presents a serious hazard for both pedestrians and cyclists and I personally have had some near misses. In addition, I have also seen “road rage” between car drivers, when priory is disputed. I hope other respondent recognise the problems with this route and you have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision.
237 Casey Fudge BH148SF I don't think its a good idea to reopen the road as it's safer for pedestrians to exercise and enjoy walking through Poole park. Me and my girlfriend use it a lot for cycling, walking and running and find it safer the road being closed than when it was open.
238 Helen Craig BH15 4DW I support the road closure at Whitecliff, there's other routes for cars and this is much safer and reduces traffic. Since the closure we use this route with our children as a through road for cycling, we didn't do this before the closure. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
239 Elizabeth BH14 8BN It has been a joy to walk from Whitecliff through to Poole Park without the risk of being killed by Longshaw idiot drivers who used to race through the narrow road under the railway bridge. Walking has really helped during lockdown, especially mental health. Please leave it closed to traffic.
240 Cllr. Mark BH15 1NF BCP Council The proposed decision is not justified by any evidence produced by officers or from the Howell consultation. Over 60% of respondents strongly want the measures to stay. Consultations should really be designed to elicit unforeseen concerns but 60% is a high figure. The EIA is negative and the DIA is damning with major negative impacts identified in three areas and no positive only impacts. The report justifies the decision by saying that officers have recently been alerted to concerns regarding “speeding cyclists” and near misses with pedestrians as a result of the closure to vehicular traffic as part of the experiment, but there is no evidence that these concerns are valid. Indeed, it goes on to say "no conflict has been observed in practice and it is apparent that most cyclists are approaching via the Harbourside Park and the access gate and in negotiating the gate they have naturally had to dismount or slow down." Mitigation measures are also identified. The scheme should be allowed to run its course over the next 12 months.
83 241 Francesca Hall BH8 8NB This second Consultation seems unnecessary given the evidence of the first however here is a submission. Of all the info and appendixes, I cannot see any reason to remove this measure, Overwhelmingly BH14 residents have greatly enjoyed this intervention, removing it for the convinience of a few, over the benefits to many shows extremely limited consideration of the bigger picture, additionally keeping will greatly enhance the upcoming Tranche 2 ATF Whitecliff scheme Details from the first set of consultations:- Appendix C shows that accessibility issues would be greatly impacted, there isnt even a footway wide enough for a wheelchair there. Which effectively prohibits all disabled users NOT in a car. "The decision to remove the closure has both negative and positive impacts on different user types. However the decision may be regarded as negative overall" Appendix D, Decision Impact shows all negative or minimal effects and no green benefits. Of the formal ETRO responses (223) only 35 were objections 128 in support (57%) No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Opening this has linked Poole Park and Whitecliff in a time when public health and well being is under spotlight even more and given a much improved park. Having incremental reduction in motor traffic is part of the BCP longer term aims through the Eco strategy- and not only BCP- an integral element of the Conservative Gvt 'Gear Change' agenda. Mr Greene- BCP are making great strides on elements of transport governance, ref Parking policy, continue this leadership with leaving this measure in place, an urban parkland is not a through route of convinience, its a destination place for all of our well being. Residents of the future will thank you for listening.
242 Peter Moore BH18 9HR NA Although I have enjoyed driving through the park when wanting to get from Poole town end through towards the beaches or vice-versa I recognise the value of reducing the amount of traffic taking this route. The inconvenience will be minor compared to the advantages of making the route much more pleasant and safer for pedestrians and cyclists. I fully support leaving the traffic restrictions in place on a permanent basis.
243 David Reed BH15 4JS None I've lived in Poole all my life, and have never understood why this bridge was open to car traffic. 84 Whitecliff and Poole Park are recreational spaces, and lots of pedestrians and cyclists use this route to navigate between the two. It's not safe for cars to be trying to get through here at the same time given how narrow it is. Poole Park has good traffic routes through its other entrances. Let this be a pedestrian and cyclist route!!! Keep it closed to cars.
244 Elizabeth BH15 3SD Please, please, please don't reopen Keyhole Bridge to motor vehicles. It is pure joy to walk in the Manetta park, around the lake, across Whitecliff and Baiter without traffic fumes and the constant noise and nuisance of cars. I've often noticed parks in other towns and cities don't have through roads, short cuts/rat runs dissecting their parks, why should we? Poole Park is a haven for wild fowl, the perfect place for children to explore so what on earth can anyone think is gained by having cars driving through? There is Parkstone Road and Sandbanks Road, both fairly main roads to service the traffic. I have often suggested on forums to have car parks at either end of the park, with no through traffic. I experienced the peace of this last year with daily walks from my home to the park, around Whitecliff, under the bridge and even through to Poole Quay. Poole is blessed with a wonderful natural resource so let's keep the motor vehicles out and we can all benefit from a safe, clean environment. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Now is the time for the Council to be courageous and stand up to the militant car lobby groups for the sake of all our children, and lead by example to encourage a healthier lifestyle for all. Keeping Poole Park free from through traffic will certainly make this Poole resident so happy, and I'm sure I won't be alone.
245 Marie Pandolfo BH152JE I am a young mum living near Poole park. I walk from my place to Whitecliff (via Poole park) very regularly. Most of the time I carry my one year old in a pushchair. With the pushchair, I always end up on the road under the bridge, as the pavement is too narrow for families. I find it very dangerous, and fear that the worst can happen if a car doesn’t see us on time. The road closure at the bridge has been a huge relief for me and my family. We don’t want it to be open to cars anymore.
246 Lucy BH1 4ER Please leave this road closed. It makes it safer for cycling and pedestrians. As a car driver also I’m happy for this road to be closed as it is used as a rat run and creates bad habits in drivers. It is too small a road to be used for the greater size and quantity of cars in the 21st century. 85 247 Mike Hampton BH14 8DL The closure of keyhole bridge has been a good action by BCP and should therefore remain closed
248 Charlotte BH14 8QA The bridge should be kept open to cars. It is more dangerous now with cyclists flying down the hill Peckham through the tunnels with pedestrians coming the other way than it ever was when cars were not restricted.
249 Emma BH140PF I think the keyhole bridge should remain pedestrianised permanently. Jackson
250 Andrew BH14 8DU There can be no justification for reopening this bridge to cars. Since it’s closure the pedestrian and Beesley bicycle use have increased and it’s much more environmentally friendly which is exactly the purpose of ETRO. There is no safe disabled access through this bridge when open to all traffic. I feel strongly it should remain closed
251 Sarah BH14 Keep the bridge closed to traffic. Its far safer for people walking and is too narrow to be safe for cars.
252 Judith BH122BX Keep it closed for cars. Since blocking it off, the feel of the park has changed. It is important to make of a public space a calm and safe area. If this road previously was used as a cut through to No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Poole, it would have been a very slow one, so not very beneficial. I can see it might be an issue for people living on Twemlow Avenue, but that is all.
253 Diana Crisp BH165RW No, do not close it. It adds to more removing of old Poole...making it far too modern for the sake of it. Been there for years, doesn't cause traffic problems....and again, council making irrational decisions. Historic poole will not exist for future generations to enjoy.
254 Alison Cox BH15 3JX Please keep keyhole Bridge closes. So much nicer and safer for pedestrians and cyclists
255 Gerald BH15 2ED MAIL SENT in case it was not recorded. ( This is slightly modified text.) By reopening this road will allow me to take a nice tour through one of my favourite roads without having to drive through a convoluted system increasing their noise and pollution from my vehicle ( I cannot Cycle ) I drive slowly and have never , ever had any incident in 55 years of driving through this bridge. Everyone has always been courteous going through, except for some cyclists who seem to think
86 that cars and pedestrians should not be on the road. and sped though the bridge without any consideration. Reopening should now make them slow down. However, traffic lights could be an answer to those who are nervous.
256 Daveena BH188LH The park is a far happier and safer place with this area closed !! It was purely a short cut through to Tweed town !!!
257 Kirsty Cooper BH11 9RJ Disagree with the proposed reopening of this road. It is far too narrow and blind to be safely open for both pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles. Simply encourages drivers to use the park as a cut through to avoid the civic centre gyratory system. Please keep it closed to cars.
258 Karina BH14 9PR Please close permanently the Rd permanently. Government green plan encouraging bike/ Maclachlan pedestrian access. Minister for health encouraging daily exercise. This will encourage non vehicles commute for town and healthcare workers.
259 Lesley Moore BH179BP I am against the key hole bridge being reopened to cars. It is used as a rat run from the dolphin centre to white cliff to cut off Civic Centre. Go there at rush hour and there are cars speeding through the park which endangers park users and is not in the spirit of the purpose of the park. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) There is a perfectly good main road to be used. Please do not reopen the bridge to vehicles and leave it for pedestrians, bikes and buggies
260 Lesley BH15 2FP The closure of the keyhole bridge has resulted in a peaceful approach to Whitecliff Park for all. Alexander Particularly at risk from traffic under the bridge are those with small children and the elderly. Both of the groups are less agile and vulnerable to aggressive and impatient car drivers.
261 Sarah Durley- BH10 5BT The idea to reopen this is very short sighted. The park is a cut through for traffic with this open. A White park should not be a place for traffic. A park is a place for people to relax in peace with their children/dogs/family, not have to worry that they may step out in front of a car going via the park. Also this route links the park and Baiter, a regular walking route that everyone needs right now
262 T Jones none PLease keep the road closed to motor traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists need all the help they can get to combat obesity, air pollution and climate change. You can increase active travel if you let people have access to lovely quiet streets, aids quality of life so much.
263 Mrs C Dance BH137PP Please keep the keyhole bridge closed it has been much safer in the park for walkers and cyclists. 87
264 Jack Dwyer BH188AN Please keep all of these in place, they make green spaces more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists and help reduce carbon footprint locally.
265 Claire Stonier BH12 3AQ n/a Please retain the traffic control measures in place. Vehicles can get around quite easily. This is a hugely valuable area for the quiet enjoyment in a safe place. Walking under the bridge with traffic passing is dangerous. Please do not remove the traffic control measures and allow people to enjoy the area safely using sustainable transport methods. Thank you.
266 Andrea Arnott BH14 8BW I would recommend that it stays closed during this further lockdown but if opened becomes one way traffic only.
267 George BH20 4DF Please keep it, the bridge is only a rat run for car drivers . Rashbrook
268 David Ross BH152NY Great idea to keep it closed! Fabulous addition to poole park, white cliff and baiter!
269 Rob Forster BH18 9ND This road should NOT be reopened to traffic. Visibility is poor when engaging in the tunnel. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
270 Michelle Fisher BH14 8DL I’m local and have used the road to drive to work every day. Now don’t get me wrong I love this journey for the peace it brings me at the end of the day with sunset and wildlife but many speed through as a cut through. But the main thing as a resident at the end of this road, I have noticed mainly the impact on Whitecliff Road for the positive and this needs to be taken into consideration. The road has become safer without the traffic cutting through the park as this traffic is now non existent. The road can’t cope with parking and with fast flowing two way traffic. It is safer for the families using the park and play facilities that park in Whitecliff Road.
271 Daniel Moors BH153DS Keep Poole Park, as free of traffic as possible. Car use should be reduced wherever possible. Commuters should try to cycle, wak and run whenever possible.
272 Richard BH14 8EG I have used the keyhole bridge walking, cycling and in my car on a very regular basis. With all Weston three forms of transport I have had absolutely no problems accessing the bridge. With a little bit of cannon sense and courtesy there is no problem.
273 Colin Wheeler BH15 2DP NA The closure of the bridge has much enhanced the experience in Poole Park and Baitor. It is
88 essential to preserve more areas of beauty for foot traffic and not vehicles which in such places are dangerous and polluting. The roadway floods and as traffic has to jostle to get through such a narrow gap it is essentially a rat run that spoils the two adjoining areas. the closure has made it a more peaceful and safe place and allowing a rat run through would further spoil the Park which overtime must be made a more vehicle free zone. Allowing for those who really need transport to enjoy it. Poole ( BCP Council ) has a unique position to uphold with respect to the environment as it is blessed with the stewardship of one of the finest harbours and coastlines in the world. This closure has been an outstanding success and why it should be overturned defies logic; unless purely for political reasons.
274 Claire Newton BH12 5HG I think the bridge should be reopened to traffic. The town is already carrying far more traffic than it can easily accommodate, and every route closure only forces more traffic onto the alternative routes. Also, as someone who has a disabled mother, who thoroughly enjoys taking drives through the park, I appreciate that not everyone is able to enjoy the outdoor space in the same way. Perhaps there could be a compromise position where it is open during peak times and closed on summer evenings and weekends?
275 Natasha BH15 2ET Keep it shut Skinner No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
276 Rex Bale BH15 2QS The keyhole bridge needs to be kept free of vehicular traffic. From my observations it has not led to a significant increase in the traffic through the narrow bridge on Sandbanks Road as one might have expected since the closure of the keyhole bridge.
277 John Allistone BH15 1EP The Keyhole Bridge should remain closed to cars. Only pedestrians and cyclists should be allowed.
278 Stuart BH15 2FP Keyhole Bridge, and its connection with the Harbour side walk and the Poole Park Lake has Alexander become a place a solace for many during this tough year. I myself have walked through this route in the park more or less daily for a year now. My previous experience was to always avoid this spot, the cars would come fast, you have to wait, there isn't any politeness or calm the space, the cars always without a doubt - rush. This is unfortunately just a symptom of the spatial design and human interaction with the space. During the last year, a lot of things have been very different for us all, many of these are bad. But the pedestrianisation of that small route has meant a world of difference to the hundreds of people
89 (possibly thousands on the weekend) who walk through it everyday. They walk through with calmness, courtesy and in many occasions, a nod of acceptance and gratitude as we pass each other around this space. Something that many of us feel is missing from society at a whole these days. This is small intervention has opened up an expecptional circular route form the park to the lake and back around, something which should be complimented and held with high regard! If cars are re-introduced, regardless of the fact 'you can still walk through this space', it will detract and be a detriment to the outside world connecting to very important places of nature to the locals. This is possibly one of the most simple and important things we all need at the moment, a connection to natural spaces, and a calm interaction with the people we co-exist with. Therefore, regardless of who's idea it was in the first place and the frankly petty party politics, please can someone stand up and do a really positive and forward thinking thing for Poole Park and Harbour connections. I mean, you have just introduced all these other improvements to the park and space, new paving, road calming measure, even amazing new lighting! The park has never looked better, and is fantastically easy to use. I honestly want to thank Martin Whitchurch and Toni Powell for a fantastic project which has been delivered! Why back down from the concepts they've introduced which are improving the life of thousands of residents?! No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) This intervention benefits a vast number of people unconsciously, subconsciously and people who are chosing to use the space everyday - like myself and many people I see there walking through! A vast number of people who are most probably far too busy worrying about their lives, work and family than they are about being able to drive under a small bridge. But that walk really enhances their ability to process and fundamentally enjoy the amazing natural spaces that Poole Park and Harbour have to offer. Regardless of the 'you can still walk through it' here are my closing experiences recently within the park which may help reinforce why many people feel very strongly to keep this arrangement, and if possible improve it! - Disability access to the Harbour. I've seen on two occasions wheelchair users with support parking by the lake, have the ability to leave their car with support and access the harbour with only a small bump by the gate on the far side. The land is flat on this side, so they can get in their wheelchair with ease, and the access is now superb. Also parking is plentiful and the space is calm on the Lake side of Keyhole bridge. - Cyclists have slowed down to go through Keyhole Bridge for and around me. We share the 90 space. This is frankly unbelievable in contrast to elsewhere in Poole and 1000 times better than before this change. - The space is calm. I've seen people with kids on scooters going through, the kids are so happy there - this is nothing to be taken lightly, this is the kind of interaction and happiness we need our public spaces to allow to happen! - The drive through the Park to Twemlow Avenue. I see people driving at 20-35mph+ here every day, without fail. Increase in car numbers and speed will come.
279 Marian Hallett BH15 1RA I believe the closure of the keyhole bridge to cars & motorcycles to be advantageous to the people choosing to exercise on foot or cycle during the ongoing pandemic, of which there is currently no sign of an imminent end. The traffic restrictions should remain in place until complete removal of all COVID restrictions are possible.
280 Carolyn BH15 1ZB I vote for Keyhole Bridge to reopen to traffic it’s never been a problem in the past and the council’s Lassiter policy on bikes is absolutely ridiculous especially on West Street, the High Street and the Quay need to be reopened ASAP as your policies are killing local businesses
281 Nikki Horobin BH15 1YD I believe keyhole bridge at Whitecliff should remain closed to cars. It feels much safer walking under this bridge when out with family on walks. I personally believe lots of people used this route No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) as a cut through to avoid the traffic at the civic centre and people really wanting to use the park and park their cars within can use the other entrances. I feel the park is a better place without the constant cars going through especially at rush hour.
282 Paul BH15 2FP Closing the bridge to traffic has been transformational. No longer do we have to peep round the Alexander corner to see if a car is coming through or worrying about whether the car will stop before one gets through the bridge. Many cars are oblivious to the "give way to pedestrians" sign. On the Poole Park side of the bridge, the road surface is poor with large puddles forming after it has rained. We no longer fear a drenching from cars going through these puddles. Please keep this bridge closed to traffic. I am a pensioner and going through this bridge is part of my daily walking route. I am much happier now that I do not have to compete with cars on this part of my walk.
283 Francis BH15 2DR I think that it is a great shame that theCouncil is proposing to re-open keyhole bridge to tarffic. I Walters use the route regulalrly as a pedestrian/cycling link between the park and Baiter and have found it much safer to use without the traffic. The bridge is very narrow and does not have a walk way. This used to cause constant conflict between pedestrans and vehicles. It also encouraged the use of the park by vehicles as a short cut between the town centre the Lilliput area and the constant 91 flow of traffic, particularly at peak times, distracts from the enjoyment of park. This is a particular pitty in view of the amount of time and expenses that has gone into the improvements and renovation of the park to create a more pleasant environement.
284 Maggie Murray BH15 2QP Its really important to keep this closure as its been a great deterrent to use as a rat run and it has been much safer for children,walking and cycling.
285 Suebellamy BH15 1JN I support the continued closure. Over the last restricted months very many young families have benefitted from this pedestrian access. The closure has opened up the development of new walking trails,using the park as a central feature.
286 Ian Bridges BH154QQ I would wish for the keyhole arch access to Poole Park remain closed to vehicular traffic. I have used this route on my frequent bike rides taken as permitted exercise during the covid restrictions. I have found it far safer for use by both pedestrian and bike user. I do not see this is a necessary route for cars. I would appreciate hearing the views of those who wish to see it reopened, as in all honesty, I can’t understand why. Thank you. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
287 Tripp Gillian BH15 1NA Much improved without traffic, very safe for families to walk or cycle, encouraging healthy living.
288 Jackie Warren BH17 8QT We regularly use this road under the bridge to walk from Poole Park To Whitecliff. We have found many times that the train underpass at Baiter is flooded, so there is no other way to go. Cars do not wait for you to walk through, so you are trying to walk along the narrow footpath, with cars and vans passing very close. If the road is flooded you also get extremely wet from the splash back from cars and vans. It is also dangerous for cars as the visibility of approaching traffic is not clear. Out of all the roads closed this one is the only one that made any sense.
289 Martin Price BH12 2JS I believe that it is essential, as part of the Council's efforts to encourage Active Travel, (in line with Government Policy), that efforts are made to reduce vehicular traffic, and encourage people to switch to walking and cycling. The bridge at Whitecliff was built before motor traffic was introduced, and was intended for pedestrian and cycle access to Poole Park. As part of the Council's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it should remain closed to vehicles.
290 Gordon Knox BH148RP I support the reopening of the Keyhole Bridge. As a retiree and regular visitor to Poole Park, my
92 nearest and most convenient access is via the Keyhole Bridge. Depending on the weather and my inclination, I previously used this access either on foot, by bicycle or in my car. Prior to the Bridge's closure to vehicular traffic, I never once experienced or witnessed any problems with the sharing of this access. I believe the closure of the Bridge was unilaterally imposed by a (vociferous) minority over a (oft silent) majority.
291 Jon Bish BH15 2LA The closure of keyhole bridge has greatly improved the experience of this important recreational area for walkers and cyclists without significantly inconveniencing motorists. I speak from personal experience as someone who has walked this area on an almost daily basis during the pandemic. It is exactly the sort of simple but effective solution to current circumstances which Poole needs and will continue to be of benefit as we strive to be a happier, healthier and more sustainable community in the future. Reversing the closure now would be an act of political vandalism.
292 Bronwen BH15 2LA access to Whitecliff for pedestrians from Poole Park is much improved following the closure. As as Thomas resident who takes most of my exercise during the pandemic walking this route I am disappointed about the decision to reopen it to traffic and so would urge you to rethink.
293 Derek Orchard BH15 2LJ I don't agree with the reopening of Keyhole Bridge to traffic witch I believe to be dangerous to motor vehicles and pedestrians. It would also encourage more motorist to use Poole Park as a rat No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) run. If you are determined to reopen this bridge I think some sort of traffic control would need to be installed for the safety of pedestrians, cyclist, and motorist. I make these comments as a motorist and walker.
294 Christopher BH15 1LD The Keyhole bridge is a prime location to encourage safety for pedestrians and cycles. The roads Allenby around the park more than adequate of coping with the traffic, why does there have to be a rat run route. Motorists have to be educated that they must allow more time for their journey rather put at risk any individual that does not have the protection of a 1 ton battering ram.
295 Heather Bale BH152BA Poole Park is a hugely popular place for local residents, particularly under the new restrictions due to Covid 19 and I think it is absolutely vital that the link from the Park into the Harbour side at Whitecliff / Baiter is kept traffic free at the keyhole bridge under the railway line. Safety to the public should take priority over traffic needs. There is no actual need for cars to drive into the park at this point, there are other more accessible and safer ways for drivers to use. In the past this way through has just been an excuse for car drivers to take a cut through the park and into Sandbanks Road. The area can often become flooded near to the model boat shed and also swans often come up out of the water here adding to the general unsuitability for traffic. 93
296 Jane Foot BH14 8AH The Bridge should stay close and not used as a cut through to make it a safe passage for children and adults walking or cycling.
297 Clare Hadley BH15 3BB I'm appalled that despite public support for the temporary closure of keyhole bridge to traffic, it is likely to re-open. The use of this route as a rat run does little to help traffic congestion on the main routes, but has a major effect on cyclists, pedestrians and mobility scooter users. In the past few months keyhole bridge has been well used by these users, and has provided a safe and pleasant route between Poole park and Whitecliff. I can't see that the limited benefits for a few motorists using a road unsuitable for motor traffic should outweigh this.
298 Michael BH14 9PJ The closure of Keyhole Bridge to motor traffic has been hugely positive for pedestrians and cyclists Tarrant alike. I have used it frequently as both. It has opened up that area of Poole Park to so many people who would have otherwise been too daunted to enter via the bridge previously. The renovation work in Poole Park has been excellent. Opening the bridge again to motor traffic would once again create a "Rat Run" to avoid the Civic Centre Gyratory System. This would render all the work to create a non threatening and calm environment in the Park, redundant. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
299 Eric Gilbert BH14 8AN Please keep the tunnel closed. It is much safer for pedestrians, folk on mobility scooters and cyclists.
300 Graham Gale BH15 4PL Do not reopen Whitecliff Road ETRO unless the bridge is straightened and aligned with the road.
301 Gillian Ingram BH12 2BW This closure and placing a raised flower bed should have been carried out years go. So good to have the park back to a much safer place to enjoy by all ages, children, youth and the elderly. Not to mention a much greener, healthy space.
302 Ronan Fox BH14 8UN Please do not reopen
303 Sarah Pitt BH122NQ I really enjoy the park with less traffic in it. We reguarly run through the bridge with a pushchair and it feels so much safer blocked off. It feels quieter and more park like rather than a cut through. Im not sure on the need to reopen this as you can access that part of the park via Twemlow Avenue if you wish to.
94 304 Clive Wilding BH152NB N/a Keep it closed. It makes a nice circular walk feel much safer!
305 Mark Kimber BH17 9AT Please do not reopen. Much more pleasant will less traffic. Really don’t need the rat run to return. And, positively, there is still plenty of opportunity for those with accessibility issues to get round to the car parks.
306 Mr. R. The ban on vehicle access through the bridge was the best thing that could have happened. Stephens Previously, it was a dangerous place to get through. The only improvement to the existing closure would be to perhaps have a more defined chicane in order to slow down cyclists. I do hope the council retain the closure.
307 David Tabb BH14 8DX In favour of keeping the keyhole bridge CLOSED. Safety of pedestrians. Serious flooding occurs under the bridge making it unsafe for vehicles. Wet brakes etc causing hazard to pedestrians. Also the corner up the road from the bridge is blind and vehicles approaching from the bridge at speed create a significant danger to both pedestrians and any oncoming cars however slow they may be going. Parking on the western side of the road exacerbates this. On numerous occasions i No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) have seen cars mount the pavement to avoid oncoming vehicles. The bridge is far to dangerous to be aloud to pen. I would suggest that if the bridge opens against these health and safety arguments then the Councillors themselves will become liable under health and safety law for ignoring this warning should someone be hurt which im afraid is inevitable.
308 Jane Jeffs BH148BN At first I was annoyed at the closing the bridge to cars felt it a hindrance. Now, it works! Is effective and safer for walkers and cyclists, reduces the car Rat Run through the park and as a local motorist I have not suffered. Keep the bridge closed to cars
309 Fiona BH13 6BG When open to cars this section under the bridge was a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. It is now Macdonald a safe area to walk and cycle making such an improvement
310 Anita Cole BH15 4DJ Keyhole Bridge is dangerous for both pedestrians, cyclists and traffic and is better left closed. there are other options for vehicles to access the park, this one is not essential. I thought BCP wanted to promote cycling and walking and this closure achieves that. 95 311 Sylvia Fox BH14 8AN Keep the Keyhole Bridge Shut.
312 Laura Ktisti BH8 9NS The bridge should stay closed to motorised vehicles
313 Paul Bannard BH14 0DG This closure, amongst others, was brought about by over-zealous councillors, with no regard whatsoever to public consultation. As no mention of accidents has arisen, then safety is not a factor....the bridge has been there since the 19th Century after all. Reinstatement should happen and a feasibility study carried out to cut a pedestrian / cyclist tunnel in the embankment next to the present bridge. Money has already been given to Poole Park for improvements, perhaps this could be funded by this Government Grant.
314 Richard Smith BH14 0PN Why spend money in the first place to block road off to remove it again, now I know where my council tax is going
315 Janna Bloice BH140DQ I would love this bridge to stay closed to motor traffic. My mum is at Wedgwood drive so I have often used this short cut, but can sacrifice this convenience to encourage more cycling and make it better and safer for walkers and those with disabilities. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
316 Lea Lohk BH14 8DL I very much This much loved Pool park is not only a driveway for cars but it is used as a car park. I don't agree that understand is it a park or a car park? or instead the main road where cars drive. Poole Park is a park and not a car main road or car park.
317 Alan Pickering BH15 2LT I wish to add my name to those who think it is a backward step to reopen the Keyhole Bridge to motorists. I use the park regularly for walking, running and cycling, and it is so much safer with no vehicles coming under the bridge. I see the vast majority of residents who responded to the survey are against the reopening; surely the point of public consultation is to hear and, as elected members, to respond wherever possible to the commonly held view
318 Anna Manning BH15 2NB I believe the road should stay closed as the park has enough vehicle access already. The bridge is not suitable for the volume of traffic that will be using it. Shouldn't we be encouraging people to
96 walk or cycle in a safe environment.
319 Elizabeth BH148AH we support the continued closure of the key hole bridge at Whitecliff Road. it was such a rat run of Raybould cars before, and pedestrians feel intimidated trying to walk through with cars behind them. Many more people are walking around safely now in this area.
320 Dr Rebecca BH14 8BT Use this bridge regularly and my daughter And friends use it to cycle to school everyday when Carron school opens I use to short cut through park when it was open by car .... but this is NOT what a park needs . Having it closed has educated folk and it is always in use by walkers / cyclists and disabled folk ... please keep it closed to cars ...
321 Jack Galloway BH14 I feel it is essential that the Whitecliff Road tunnel remains closed to cars. It has made a huge difference for pedestrians not only in Covid times but in general. It was always dangerous and difficult for pedestrians with cars driving through especially during rush hour. The park should not be able to be used as a rat run.
322 Bob BH14 9EN Keep it closed. Great for cycling. Stops a dangerous rat run. Whitcombe No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
323 Sarah Swify BH179JS Personal & The restriction to vehicles should remain in place. The park is much nicer, more appealing and running most importantly a safer place now. The vehicles have a perfectly adequate alternative route. community Thank you
324 Jeneta Bird BH123AL The closure of this rd and other roads in Poole have led to the feeling of it being a ghost town. My husband and I used to really enjoy driving through White Cliff rd and under the bridge to get to the park. Sadly it's become more and more difficult to drive into Poole. It's detrimental to shops , cafes , Restaurant's ect if people can't drive there easily.
325 Graham Filmer BH15 3DD Please do not reopen the keyhole bridge. The park is a beautiful space to walk and cycle. Allowing cars through is not great for the environment and dangerous for small children playing in the park. Not sure why you would want to create a shortcut through the park, unless you live in Parkstone Rd. 97
326 Timothy John BH178PL The closure of the Keyhole bridge transforms people's experience of beautiful Poole Park. It makes it safe for pedestrians to pass from the park to Whitecliff (many times, I've been passed through the tunnel with my elderly parents into the face of oncoming traffic, or with vehicles approaching from behind). Further, it prevents the daily 4.30pm to 5.30pm traffic curse as motorists turn Poole Park into a car park to shave two minutes from their commute. The closure promotes safety, pleasure and a vision for a cleaner, brighter, less congested Poole. To remove it would be madness. The Park is a credit to the town and the council. It must be protected.
327 Yvette Bessant BH14 9AU I am against reopening keyhole bridge to traffic. It has been such a joy to be able to enjoy our beautiful park with less traffic. It is not convenient for me as a commuter to have it closed but I do feel that it is the right decision for the wider community. At the very least it should be closed for a much longer period at least 2 years to properly assess immediate and wider impacts
328 Graham BH14 8SE The rat-run through the park and under the bridge is completely unnecessary. This area should be Sutherland free for the geese and the swans and the public to enjoy
329 John Biggs BH3 7LZ Keyhole Bridge should remain open for pedestrians only and closed to vehicles except bikes. Access for pedestrians between the two important open spaces is limited and vehicles make this No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) route hazardous. Vehicles can get to Poole Park but this access makes it too easy for cars to attempt a short cut through the Park to the detriment of all users.
330 Lorna Cooper BH148AH Private citizen Closing key hole bridge to cars and motorcycles has given a great sense of safety and tranquility back to this area. Pedestrian use has increased dramatically in all forms- being running, walking ,safety for children as has the wildlife. With having a park open to through traffic and a large lake there is significantly less space for pedestrian park users. The ability to space out has been a godsend in covid times when social distance keeps us safe. This has been a wonderful few months without cars - more of this please.
331 Mrs Cooper BH14 8AH None Why is democracy being circumvented here? Originally there was an 18 month trial to see if new ways of transport network could be improved for local people. Then a 6 month consultation was added for completion in February 2021 and now there is this quasi consultation with end date 22 January 2021. So a mere 48 hours to complete it after information via Daily Echo article yesterday. I subscribe to council missives so why have I not heard through the BCP Council? There is no online petition and I have seen no other petition concerning this. Why all the secrecy and lack of publicity and lack of debate? Why has the DEFRA policy been abandoned with no notice? 98
332 Martin Porter BH153LA Keep this road closed. No reason to open it again .
333 Heather BH6 3QD N/A We need this road kept open Hanney
334 Stuart BH15 2FP Hi there, thanks again, I just wanted to add a few points from todays visit through Keyhole Bridge Alexander at 10.30am. It was quite an insight and I thought it'd be very useful to share! I was only there to walk through at 10.30-10.31 - I did not sit and wait and count, and although I'm passionate about this subject, I also have things to do and work! 7 buggies - Mums walking side by side. Mum and Scooter gliding through, the kid fell off but was quickly picked up from the carriageway and was smiling once again. Multiple set of pedestrians. It's not just disabled people parking by the Model Boat Lake, its Mum's with buggies, a lot of them! I'm glad they've got great access to public green space and the harbour after the year they've had. There was one getting out where I walk past, and 3/4 others visable as I approached. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Please see attached photoset from Dropbox or Google or WeTranfer, if you require these another way due to permissions, contact me and I'll get them to you as soon as possible. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gxwndh81hzsmdv8/AAAfV1UYGVS6rGe4QiV4pJMha?dl=0 or https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uMsEdHVbnJ_UwTldVx5XGClle0CgjSmp/view?usp=sharing or https://wetransfer.com/downloads/1ff8febd3ffec31701a209b5ae61098920210121114428/5292576 c2ed60660db27aa69c051de0920210121114923/621f53 Traffic is much so better around all roads of the park since Covid and the Roadworks finished on Sandbanks Road, I've never had to wait getting anywhere, including 8-9am and 5-6pm (which was gridlocked before). So the use of Keyhole bridge as a rat run is more or less pointless. Equally BCP Council itself has posted a video to Social Media (Facebook) about Transforming Travel. 99 I list the points that BCP itself is projecting out on Social Media, as policy I would imagine, and ask which is not a contradiction to the current use, and re-opening of Keyhole Bridge? Transforming Travel (BCP Council 21st January 2021) To make a better future... Tackling congestion hotspots... Easing traffic flow... Making air quality improvements... Bringing improved health and wellbeing... With cleaner air and improved mental health benefits... Great travel choices... 78km of new active travel routes... Connecting people from their homes to work AND lesiure... Creating new cycleways for a more enjoyable and safer experience.. Better pavement access for people with mobility needs... No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) You've succeeded on pretty much all of the above on this date with Keyhole Bridge. When the block is removed, you will have failed on your own points. How is that making a better future? Equally I'm curious to know what the British Standards are for pedestrian routes alongside carriageways. After working myself on public realm projects, locally and nationally, it amazes me that without major improvements to Keyhole Bridge that this would even reach a current guideline or standard for use in 2021 for shared carriageway and pedestrian use. Happy to be proven wrong though, as I'm not a highway engineer. But I'd imagine common sense would be that it must be wide enough for a double buggy. No fixed standard, 2m perhaps. 3m if shared with cyclists? I hope my feedback is useful in supporting the decision process and hearing the views of local people keen to continue using such a wonderful addition to glorious Poole Park and Harbour. Many Thanks
335 D Milne BH14 8BN Having the road closed to cars has made such a positive difference. Less dangerous to cross road,
100 less dangerous for those parking to visit white cliff play park as less cars and they aren’t speeding through a ‘rat run’. Please keep current restrictions on place
336 Mrs Sue Mogg BH14 8AH I am sending a photo of the sign ( to the ETRO email) that has been added today, 21st Jan to the planter blocking the bridge which once again is not signed and could be seen as misleading information. I want the bridge reopened please.
337 Rohan Byles BH14 8AN As a resident in the adjacent street, we have enjoyed the quieter roads as would prefer the road closure to remain in place. We would also like to see traffic calming measures in place in Twemlow avenue as cars leaving the park can speed up quite quickly on the straight
338 Jane Porter BH153LA Please do not reopen this to cars.Its so nice to be able to walk between Poole Park and Whitecliff without cars pushing through this choke point.
339 Marina Baker BH14 8AJ Please reconsider and reopen the keyhole bridge to cars. For residents in Orchard & Twemlow Aves it makes a big difference. Pedestrians must be kept safe and have priority. To reopen it, it needs very clear signage to drivers and cyclusts to give absolute priority to pedestrians by painting big pictures on the road and the bridge itself of pedestrians to highlight this as well as really clear signage.. Thank you. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
340 Dr Andrew BH15 1LF I fully support the closure of the Keyhole Bridge to vehicle traffic. There can be no justification for Green its reversion to the previous status, allowing motor vehicles to use it. This is not an essential link route and serves only as a short cut for non-local vehicles to avoid congestion on main roads. For access to areas such as Poole Park (which itself is not a through route for motor vehicles during busy times), access from the Whitecliffe area can be easily be made using Orchard Avenue/Twemlow Avenue and Whitecliffe Road/Sherwood Avenue. I doubt that many locals are affected directly by this closure, and it merely serves as an irritant to people not from teh local area wishing to use a short cut to avoud traffic eslewhere.
341 Tom Lintern- BH152LS I support the reopening of this road. Thank you very much portfolio holder! Mole
342 Katherine BH14 8HH Return Whitecliff road to car traffic Forni
101 343 Erica Gilbert BH14 8AN I think keeping this tunnel pedestrianised is a great initiative- makes it more pedestrian friendly and better for families who want to enjoy the area. I feel that this will facilitate exercise and increase safety.
344 Bryan Dion BH14 8HH Keep Whitecliff road open to car traffic
345 Michelle BH15 2QT I think that the park is a much nicer place to be for all users that I meet but also for me personally Keohan as I use the route most days when walking the dogs from my home to the sea. I work in a local school and am primary career for our school dog who benefits greatly from a daily swim, due to the vets recommendation to ease the joints, and didn’t realise how congested and stressful it was getting through the key hole bridge by foot was until the peacefulness was created when the road was closed. I think it would be a real shame to open the road to traffic after it has been such a success.
346 Vanessa BH14 8SG I think the keyhole bridge should remain closed to cars. Hughes
347 Garry Moors BH152JW The bridge closure to traffic should not be removed as the bridge is far safer for pedestrians as they no longer clash with cars . The increase in pedestrians and cyclists in that area of the park has increased since the closure 😁😁 No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
348 Ray Hince BH15 1UW Please do not open keyhole bridge again to motor vehicles. Poole Park will again become a rat- run during the rush hour for cars trying to avoid traffic on major routes. That narrow bridge is not suitable for motor vehicles and they present an unneccesary danger to pedestrians & cyclists. The restricting of keyhole bridge to pedestrians & cyclists has significantly enhanced the safety of walkers and cyclists whilst also creating a far more pleasant environment for the wonderful Poole Park. I certainly appreciate it because I live in Baiter and daily either walk or cycle via that route.
349 Jonathan Ginn BH11 8AF The closure of Keyhole Bridge to motor traffic is such a sensible idea. It allows pedestrians and cyclists to easily access one of our lovely parks in a safe way. I cannot see any benefit to cars or pedestrians by allowing cars to enter Poole Park from this direction. It's far too small and dangerous for cars. This ETRO should NOT be revoked. At the very least, allow it to continue for the whole period as designed, then make an informed decision.
350 Geoffrey BH14 8JB Keep the keyhole bridge closed to motor traffic.
102 Farrant
351 Ian Fisher BH15 2QN I walk through here up to four times a day every day, since pedestrianisation I feel much safer,I've had numerous near misses especially heading into the park with very unforgiving car's coming towards white cliff. I understand that there is a very large majority in favour of maintaining the closure yet you seem to want to ignore the views of the majority why is this? Out of all of the opportunistic road closures that were undertaken in 2020 this was the only one which truly made sense. Based on the majority view and my own please leave this closure in place.
352 Dave Hulbert BH14 9EL Please keep the road closed to motor vehicles at Keyhole Bridge. Since closing I've walked and cycled under the bridge and around the bridge area. I wouldn't have attempted this before, due to safety. Thank you.
353 Helen Hunter BH14 8DW As a local to Poole Park, my closest access is through Keyhole bridge. Since the closure it has been and felt safer to walk through the park. There is still access to the park for cars via Poole Park road and Kingland road which are closer to designated parking, so there is no real argument of lack of access to vehicles disability or otherwise. A park should be somewhere for people to enjoy open space and wildlife safely not to be used as a rat run which is the only real reason for No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Keyhole bridge being opened up to more traffic again. If there is an issue with heavy traffic along Sandbanks road to Poole Town, then look at the existing roads not park space.
354 Dale Inglis BH14 0QE I'm in support of the restrictions remaining in place on Whitecliffe Road for the following reasons. - pedestrian safety due to cars not historically always give way. This ends up with people being "squeezed" into a very narrow path whilst the cars drive through at the same time. Drivers do not understand that they have to give way which creates the high risk of injury to both the pedestrians and/or any pets. - since the barriers have been put in place the amount of cars using the park has dramatically reduced which implies that the access through the Whitecliffe Road creates a short cut to and from Poole via the park. This reduction has dramatically improved the atmosphere of the park as only people who want to visit it by car are now doing so. This has also dramatically reduced the late night high speed driving that historically occurred. This was obviously a danger to anyone or animals in the park. Anyone that needs to access either side of the Whitecliffe Road can still do so via Twemlow 103 Avenue with only a slight deviation. Regards Dale Inglis
355 Jonathan BH14 8AH Resident of I am in favour of closing the keyhole bridge permanently. It is much safer for users of Poole park Cooper poole and baiter park because it stops all the traffic which uses it as a rat run. This is safer for children and dogs and other wildlife. It makes the park much more pleasant with less car noise and less pollution from cars. It makes it safer for cyclists using the cycle path network. It makes it healthier for all the runners who use Poole park and baiter park. It is much better for dog walkers who can give their dogs more freedom by being off the leash. Before the keyhole bridge was closed there was endless traffic especially in the early evening when people drove through Poole park to avoid the civic centre roundabout. These drivers often exceeded the speed limit because they were hurrying home and I have seen drivers over take other cars which were obeying the speed limit. Poole park should not be considered as part of the road network. If there are traffic flow issues along park stone road and the civic centre roundabout then the solution should be road based for those roads. Please don't ruin the park because the roads are too crowded. The park should be a place where people go with their families, with their children, with their friends to enjoy the open space and peacefulness. Opening the keyhole bridge will allow traffic to flow through the park more quickly using it as a rat run. Please keep the keyhole bridge shut. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
356 Steve BH165DQ I object to the re opening of the access point. This is because increasing the amount of road traffic Robinson through the bridge will increase the risks of injury or serious harm to pedestrians. I am particularly concerned about the increased risk to older people and those with disabilities who would lose the benefit of having an area just made safer for them, removed and made more dangerous. Although this has not been a historically high incident area this does not mean it should not be made even safer.
357 Kate Phillips BH148TW I would prefer to see the vehicular access restriction maintained. With the additional amount of people walking and cycling it has been a godsend to be able to progress under the bridge without road traffic. It would be impossible to maintain pedestrian social distancing if cars etc were to return to this route. Please do not open this route back up to road traffic.
104 358 Mark BH15 2QL ETRO 2, the closing of Key Hole Bridge at the end of Whitecliff Road is fundamental in preventing Jamieson access by motorized traffic into Poole Park by those using the park road as a short cut/rat run. The park is bounded by two major roads so there is absolutely no argument for this usage. Also this traffic adds to congestion and pollution in an area which should be a pleasure to enjoy for recreational purposes. The road through the park was never designed for heavy vehicle usage. The bridge is a squeeze point for traffic and hence if opened to motorized vehicles becomes extremely dangerous to more vulnerable users such as pedestrians and cyclists. I SUPPORT ETRO 2. The on line survey results also overwhelmingly support ETRO 2 and the closure of Key Hole Bridge so it appears to an outsider that if the Portfolio Holder's decision is to reopen the bridge he/she has gone against a democratic consultation process and one that suggests own interest.
359 Wookey BH21 3LR This is marvellous. Reducing motor traffic is absolutely necessary, especially in parks and residential areas. Please make it permanent.
360 Dr Luke Turley BH15 1QS Why are you reopening keyhole bridge before the end of the public consultation. Traffic should not be using the park as a short cut putting safety of pedestrians at risk. You are putting convenience over safety! Not acceptable No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
361 B M Beech BH15 2HA I (a driver) think the road should remain closed to cars it is unsuitable for motor vehicles. As a short-cut to Whitecliff it saves very little time whereas for pedestrians it is a useful cut-through between The Park and the Whitcliffe walks. However the ugly planter and bollards should be removed (quite unsuitable for the park environment) normal signs suffice. The installation of two half gates would slow cyclists (or force a dismount) I have seen speeding cyclists and video presented (on social media) as evidence of the benefit of closure showed schoolchildren cycling through with 'no hands'.
362 Dan BH14 8AH The road should remain shut, as it makes the park a more pleasant space to be generally with less cars. I enjoy the freedom of being able to walk along that short piece of road and be able to social distance by walking on the road through to White cliff
363 Anthony O'neill BH15 9EG The ETRO has not reduced traffic but consolidated it elsewhere to the detriment of road users, households and cyclists using affected routes.
105 364 Sarah Lowe BH14 8HF As a local constituent I would like to voice my concern about the proposed re-opening of the Keyhole Bridge at Whitecliffe. The Bridge should remain closed to ensure the safety of those entering Poole Park by foot or bike. There is no need for vehicles to use this entrance which had become a rat run for cars attempting to avoid the traffic. The bridge size is also unsuitable for modern day car sizes.
365 Gay O'connor BH153QD It is much safer to walk and cycle from Poole Park to Whitecliffe with key hole bridge closed to vehicles. The tunnel is very narrow and the pavement very narrow and not suitable for prams and pushchairs. There has been reduced traffic through Poole Park since the closure of key hole bridge to vehicles.
366 Julia Card BH14 8PG I fully support the measures in place currently to keep the keyhole bridge for pedestrians and cyclists only. The psychological and physical health benefits of walking and cycling far outweigh any other considerations for car drivers having a slightly longer journey. In fact, this scheme could encourage less car use and so reduce the number of cars on the nearby roads. We should keep the amount of cars allowed into the park to the minimum. Disabled drivers now have priority parking near the Kingland Road entrance thus enabling them to visit the park and exit via this entrance. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
367 Judith Garrity BH149LS The keyhole bridge should remain closed to vehicles. It should be open as a route for cyclist and pedestrians only. The reasons for this are: 1. It is a narrow bridge with poor visibility and a narrow pavement on one side. This means cars coming through the bridge one way only and have poor visibility of pedestrians, cyclists, disabled or those with pushchairs who need to walk in the road. This is not safe and as they are not given priority. 2. The retention of the vehicular route encourages cars to cut through Poole Park partic during rush hour which diminishes the character and quality of the environment of the park as a historic garden as well as affecting pedestrians safety and air quality. 3. The closure of the bridge to cars enables the walking and cycling route from Whitecliff to the Park and town to be more effectively linked encouraging alternative sustainable modes of transport. This is of benefit to well being and climate change. 4. The road often floods under the bridge at it is at a low level.
106 This is an opportunity to improve the environment of the Park which is for all residents and visitors, with benefits to pedestrian safety partic of children and would encourage walking and cycling and greater use of sustainable modes of transport.
368 Gabi Salvi BH15 1QN I’m old lady on bike and walking. I like it shut. No cars is more safety.
369 Serena BH15 3QD As someone who uses both Poole Park and Whitecliff Park regularly for exercise, including walking O'connor and cycling, the closing of Keyhole Bridge to traffic has greatly improved safety when using these areas. I feel much more comfortable using this route when it is closed to traffic and would be very disappointed if cars are allowed to use this route again. The very narrow walkway under the bridge also makes this route incredibly dangerous and even inaccessible for elderly or disabled people, or people with prams or young children. I believe this is unacceptable, as the primary use of the park should be for leisure, not as a through route for traffic.
370 D Smith BH15 3QB How can you say letting 1 tonne plus metal boxes back under bridge is ok, if you say it’s bad that a person on a bike might hit someone??? Makes no sense. Keep it shut. It’s about keeping us people safe not keeping your Tory mates happy.
371 Michael Garrity BH14 9LS I support the Whitecliff Road tunnel closure to vehicular traffic. The park is a great asset to Poole bit through-traffic had been a long standing detraction from the tranquility and safe, healthy environment that a park should offer. My children have grown up using the park but too much of No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) the park is affected by the road serving as a congestion-avoiding cut through. This is an opportunity to focus on the park's primary purpose.
372 Jennie BH15 2QL N/A I support ETRO 2. My husband and I only have one email address so this is my opinion. Jamieson My reasons for support are firstly that Keyhole Bridge is extremely narrow for vehicle use and coming from the Lilliput end has a right turn restricting visibility which endangers pedestrians and cyclists coming the other way. Having used this road way for some 40 years I am well aware many vehicle drivers are using the Keyhole bridge road as a "quick" short cut from Lilliput towards the Civic Centre and in their hurry do not look out for the other road users. More accidents will happen! It has been said that speeding cyclists can cause accidents here but I'm sure some way can be devised to slow them down. If it comes to it, however, I would rather be hit by a cyclist than a car! Secondly, this area is very much to do with family recreation and allowing vehicular access again through the bridge will cause more air pollution. Whilst the bridge has been closed I have enjoyed clean air on my walks and cycles here. I do not want to breath in these additional fumes or have my grand children do so. One grand child already suffers from asthma. Don't make it worse. 107 373 Alan Pounds BH21 2NH Dorset Cyclists I think that it should stay as a safe route for both cycling and pedestrians. Network It is far too narrow for safe passage of cars as well. Perhaps traffic lights could be installed as a help to all types of traffic.
374 Kathleen Eyre BH14 8BP Closure of the road through the keyhole bridge is the only closure I agree with. It benefits everybody, not just those living in the road. There are lots of walkers, dog walkers, families and cyclists who go under the bridge. It is much safer without the cars. The road is effectively part of the park and should be without traffic. We do not live on the roads affected by the closure ( so have no bias). We live on Sandbanks road
375 Rachel Palmer BH14 8RF I fully support the keyhole bridge to remain open. Please do not reintroduce cars into Poole Park via this bridge. People cycling and walking are now much safer and happier with a lovely ‘hello’ shared as you pass rather than running through it between cars risking your life!
376 Matt Palmer BH14 8RF Please keep the bridge open as it allows people to exercise especially children & disabled without fear of traffic coming through the traffic. I’ve seen many cars driving through at high speed with little consideration on what’s through the other side!
377 Sophie Armes BH14 8DL Much better with the road blacked off No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
378 Marie Cleary BH15 2QP I live near the park and we use the park most days. Closure of the bridge means that we are and feel safer in the park when walking or cycling under the bridge on our way to and from Baiter and beyond. Cars were known to come through at a speed higher than that expected and electric cars can be almost silent - both bringing risks. I have a 90 year old mother in law living close to the park and I would wish to keep her safe also when using the park for fresh air and exercise. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
379 Simon BH153QD Please keep the Whitecliff Rd ETRO in place!! O'connor I am shocked and outraged to hear that you are proposing to remove the Whitecliff Rd ETRO thereby re-opening this road and Poole park to again be used as a rat run! Myself and my family live near the area and most days we walk through Poole park and Whitecliff park for exercise and
108 have felt much safer due to less traffic since the ETRO went in. As indicated in your own assessment, our safety and that of all vulnerable park users will be compromised with your plan just to enable some motorists to save, at most, a few minutes off their journeys! We have witnessed some cars travelling at excessive speeds due to improved road surfacing in Poole park. Removing the ETRO would incentivise more speeding motor vehicles through the park, going as quick as they can, to try to save more time. Also, as there are now more private car journeys due to avoidance of public transport and a continuation of growth in car ownership, then the volume of rat run traffic is likely to be significantly greater than pre-ETRO. In your ‘Summary of risk assessment’, it follows that removing the ETRO will increase park traffic and therefore increase risk to the large numbers of vulnerable park users – cars vs people. This increased risk considerably outweighs the possible ‘safety disbenefits’ of motor vehicles continuing to use routes around the park which have so few pedestrians and so the risk is cars vs cars. With regard to the comments in ‘Consultation undertaken’, those discounted messages, that were received since 15th October, are now surely relevant as they are in response to a proposed re- opening of Keyhole bridge to through traffic which is your current intent. Hence, those messages should be considered in the Consultation review. With regard to ‘Summary of public health implications’, I don’t see how you can state this is ‘Broadly neutral’ when, as you state, there will be additional safety risks to vulnerable Poole park No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) users. Also, the health risks of more pollution, eg exhaust fumes and carcinogenic brake dust from extra vehicular traffic. With all the above in mind, please do not remove the Whitecliff Rd ETRO.
380 Nichola Saxon BH14 8HB Please can you keep the pedestrians and cyclists safe by keeping the bridge entrance to Poole Park closed. Previously it was used as a cut through for traffic between Poole and Whitecliff and this hasn’t been an issue in recent months. I use the route at least twice a week so I’m affected by any changes. I can’t understand why you would consider reopening this route which would impact both the environmental and safety of local residents.
381 Paul Kelly BH151UZ I strongly support the closure of keyhole bridge to traffic for two reasons: A) The very narrow access is a danger to pedestrians if motor vehicles are using it too ; B) Allowing through-traffic in the park significantly undermines it's primary purpose as a peaceful and safe place to enjoy nature, especially during rush hours when it becomes a congested and polluting "rat-run". 109 382 K Haslam BH15 4FF I am a driver, but I do not think the bridge in Poole Park should be re-opened to traffic. I think it's much better for the park to be kept for young families to enjoy. Cars can go on the main road not through the park.
383 Jennifer BH15 4HJ Open the key hole tunnel for all to use as intended and prevent traffic using other routes Walker
384 John Fisher BH12 3LF none Since Keyhole Bridge was closed to vehicles it has become one of our favourite walks going from the Park, under the railway bridge, across Whitecliff and back through Keyhole Bridge. As older residents of Poole, we always found it too 'scary' to consider walking through Keyhole Bridge when cars and vans rushed through. Please keep it closed to vehicles.
385 Louise Trew BH153QA Stops the rat run of cars going too fast into the park
386 Chris Goulding BH148AW I would the keyhole bridge to remain closed my 3 children have all commented how much safer they feel cycling to whitecliffe park since it's been closed. Thank you Family Goulding No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
387 Susan Dicker BH17 8AN Re open
388 Paul Voisey BH12 4JP The Keyhole Bridge should revert to full access to all vehicles and cyclists and pedestrians as it always has been. There have never been any safety issues or serious conflict between users. The pressure groups advocating its closure are a minority but very vocal and with personal vested interests. If something isn't broken don't try to fix it. This is a quirky and iconic feature affording a nice access into the park.
389 Paul Trayler BH140QL Dear BCP, I have lived in Poole for my whole life and regularly use the Park for both walks and whenever possible running, I was delighted to find that Keyhole Bridge was finally closed to motorised traffic. The bridge clearly isn't compatible for both pedestrians and motor vehicles. I have had many scary moments when I was half way under the bridge leaving the Park, to be confronted by a car coming the other way.
110 I trust that you will accept the will of the people of Poole, whatever that may be, and honour their views. Kind regards Paul
390 Philip BH14 8RZ I have a daily 5Km walk with my wife the loop takes us along the harbour path and back through Lawrence Poole Park vis the Keyhole Bridge. The walk is at the moment safe from cars and vans as the bridge is currently closed and is now well used by walkers. As you are aware the route under the Bridge is narrow and unsafe for vehicles and pedestrians at the same time. This route is used by vehicles as a rat-run to avoid the busy Civic Centre roundabout and the Sandbanks Road bottleneck bridge so as such the drivers are more concerned with faster travel than the safety of others. I would be more apprehensive about walking this route if vehicles were allowed once again to have free access to this bridge. Safety First please keep the Keyhole Bridge closed to vehicles.
391 Mark BH14 8DU none Please reopen the keyhole bridge, although Whitecliff Road is much quieter the chaos on Sandbanks Road is never worth it. Traffic on Sandbanks Road on busy 'beach' days has been back to Lilliput due to drivers inability to pass through bridge 2 at a time. In addition, many people from this area are no longer using the facilities of the park due to the restrictions as it means driving round Civic Centre to access. These people are generally older 65+ and enjoy a short walk, and a coffee when facilities are open. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
392 Lyn BH14 8DU none It is essential to get the keyhole bridge back open to enable local residents to use the park more readily. I have arthritis and cannot walk long distances but like to take the grandchildren to the park weekly. This has happened since its been closed and using Whitecliff facilities is not the same. The very bad traffic congestion on Sandbanks Road will also be helped when the bridge is opened.
393 John BH152QN As a resident of Poole for over 25 years I regularly walk through this bridge. Since this bridge has been closed to cars it has massively improved safety for pedestrians, as well as allowing improved social distancing in the current Covid situation. There is no need to have this route open to cars and I would strongly argue that it should remain CLOSED to traffic.
394 J Martin BH14 0EH The road is safe as it is. Ordinarily you have to stand and wait ages to walk through the tunnel because you have to wait for cars. It’s barely a short cut for people so it’s easy enough to go around. Please leave it closed.
395 Rebecca BH140DX please DO NOT OPEN THE ROAD 111 396 Andy Waters BH166EB NA I think keeping the bridge shut can only bring about positives for everyone that uses the park and whitecliffe. The bridge is often flooded and causes congestion as cars often use it as a short cut. It is much safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike to keep it shut to cars.
397 Sylvia Haddrell BH166JD It has been so much cleaner and more peaceful since the bridge was closed and it should be kept that way. There is no need for fume-belching cars to be using it again. Reopening it contravenes government policy and will be detrimental to local people's health. We are trying to make the air cleaner! Please keep it closed. Thank you.
398 Lesley The reopening of Keyhole Bridge, linking Poole Park with Whitecliff Park, would have a net Johnson negative impact on the environment, and yet plans announced this week that the intention is to reopen it to car traffic goes against the current 'climate emergency'.
399 Simon Wyatt BH14 9LR As a cyclist I have found the park a real pleasure to travel through during the closure of the bridge. It has been lovely to see a large number of people in the park and for them to have priority when crossing the road. I cycled through the park regularly before the closure and it was far more challenging and unpleasant when used as a rat run, particularly on dark winter's evenings when speed bumps cause car headlights to be blinding. I really do think that reopening the bridge will be No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) a retrograde step and result in emissions and vehicles to once again take priority over those who use the park for recreation and open space, surely its primary function?
400 Adam BH18 8ED I think blocking the underpass in poole park was a great idea, the park should be enjoyed by Tettenborn pedestrian and cyclists in safety, the reason to reopen seems to be to encourage rat runs. Having this access as a safe path for cyclists means that they can avoid the main road past the civic centre and aviod going under the narrow bridge at Sandbanks Road . Lets make the park an enjoyable safe space not a rat run.
401 Andy Vipond BH6 3JL Lytchett Please do not open Keyhole Bridge. Thank you! Minster School
402 Joe Brake DT28UL I feel the idea of reopening the bridge is a backward step: we are in a climate emergency and should be reducing traffic.
403 James BH14 0DT Keep it closed to traffic. With the work that has been completed in the park the traffic calming
112 Stockley measures have been reduced which will lead to card going quicker. the park is much nicer with fewer cars in it and people not using it as a cut through. much safer for cyclists and pedestrians with that bridge closed.
404 Helen BH211SQ I completely agree that we should not encourage traffic to cut through Poole Park. The park needs to be used as a relaxing green space. Increasing traffic speed is not safe and after the pandemic, calming outside space is all-the-more important.
405 Sue Davie BH15 3QD As a regular user of Poole park I have noticed significant less cars using the park as a cut through due to the access being denied at keyhole bridge. The reduction in cars using the park is a good thing for all park users and so I object to the reopening of the bridge. With less cars the park is a much safer place and I believe better for all users.
406 Lucian Drane DT11 7JP Please consider how these decisions are helping to promote sustainable non polluting travel
407 Kate Stewart BH140DT As a regular pedestrian, cyclist and car user in Poole park I think you should keep this road closed to car traffic. This is safest for all park goers.
408 David Mann BH14 8DJ Local resident Please leave the ETRO in place, it has massively improved the safety of the surrounding area and stopped this being used as a rat run with cars through Poole Park. Please also consider closing Poole Park to through traffic No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
409 Emma Creed BH14 8DJ Please leave the ETRO in place, it has massively improved the safety of the surrounding area and stopped this being used as a rat run with cars through Poole Park. Please also consider closing Poole Park to through traffic
410 Seren Creed BH14 8DJ Please leave the ETRO in place, it has massively improved the safety of the surrounding area and stopped this being used as a rat run with cars through Poole Park. Please also consider closing Poole Park to through traffic
411 Edwin Creed BH14 8DJ Please leave the ETRO in place, it has massively improved the safety of the surrounding area and stopped this being used as a rat run with cars through Poole Park. Please also consider closing Poole Park to through traffic
412 Celyn Creed BH14 8DJ Please leave the ETRO in place, it has massively improved the safety of the surrounding area and stopped this being used as a rat run with cars through Poole Park. Please also consider closing Poole Park to through traffic
113 413 Alef Creed BH14 8DJ Please leave the ETRO in place, it has massively improved the safety of the surrounding area and stopped this being used as a rat run with cars through Poole Park. Please also consider closing Poole Park to through traffic
414 Jule Creed BH14 8DJ Please leave the ETRO in place, it has massively improved the safety of the surrounding area and stopped this being used as a rat run with cars through Poole Park. Please also consider closing Poole Park to through traffic
415 Robert Mann BH2 5LD Please leave the ETRO in place, it has massively improved the safety of the surrounding area and stopped this being used as a rat run with cars through Poole Park. I am elderly and regularly walk through here. Please also consider closing Poole Park to through traffic
416 Jane Mann BH2 5LD Please leave the ETRO in place, it has massively improved the safety of the surrounding area and stopped this being used as a rat run with cars through Poole Park. I am elderly and regularly walk through here. Please also consider closing Poole Park to through traffic
417 David BH23 2EY Please keep Keyhole bridge closed to vehicles. It can be equally argued reducing the number of Breakwell vehicles on roads by active travel is making more efficient use of the Road network. The more vehicles on the road the slower traffic becomes. Does the Council have an obligation to reduce Carbon foot i9n line with National Government policy? No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
418 Mr Andrew BH211QQ I am against the reopening of Whitcliff Road to traffic following its temporary closure. I my view the Gower reopening of this road to vehicles goes entirely against central government and BCP council policy to address the climate emergency and I understand this is supported by local opinion survey. Please reconsider.
419 Tom Old BH14 8BJ Dear Mr. Greene, please keep the Keyhole bridge on the edge of Poole Park closed. There is a constant flow of walkers using the bridge and taking advantage of the quieter roads. Keeping it closed benefits local residents as well as supports the climate goals of Bournemouth and the UK. I see no credible reason why it should reopen.
420 Councillor BH15 3BB Ward I think that the report summarises well the benefits for walking and cycling, and equalities Andy Hadley Councillor improvements for improving the wellbeing of our population during the Pandemic restrictions, but Poole Town also beyond to supporting Active Travel to the Town Centre area, and importantly between Poole, Ward Whitecliff and Baiter Parks. I find the draft decision to be entirely at odds with the expert advice you have from officers, the
114 corporate objectives of BCP council, and the balance of feedback received. We know that changes to the road layout will always be controversial, but to remove the measure would fly in the face of the majority Ward Councillor opinon (3 Poole Town Councillors as against 2 Parkstone), and the impact assessments you have before you.
421 Elizabeth BH7 7EF I think the road should be closed to motor vehicles. Give the cyclists a chance. Lewis
422 Gordon Lowe BH17 8UA Poole ac Leave this tunnel closed to traffic. It's a deathtrap waiting to harm pedestrians and cyclists.
423 George BH2 6DY BCP Council I am in support of this ETRO remaining closed. Farquhar I have used this route on occasion and in the same way as the closure of through traffic has benefited Kings Park the initial consultation indicates results strongly indicate the same. However my concern relates to the amount of confusion and animosity that this move to a 5 day consultation has created on social media groups. Once more it has ignited a controversial situation within and without the communities and demographics directly or indirectly effected. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) I have screen shots of some of these exchanges which I am willing to share with the PH as they have an influence on the consultation and the decision. I have had residents who happen to be Labour supporters and members living within the area confused and concerned that their initial representations in the first 5months of consultation are being discarded in favour of this latest 5day consultation. I have raised this concern with Daniel Parsons who's workload has increased by having to redirect those members of the public latest batch of public representations to this new channel. Also the fact some of those representations will be lost due to this new route superceding the other channel that is open until to the 14th of February. A consultation that was laid out by government proscribed process to my understanding. My concern is two fold 1. The risk of public representation over 5months experience of the closure being disregarded. 2. This shortened 5 day consultation has caused confusion and obstruction to what was laid out to the public 5months ago and the danger of the information being skewed by this confusion and lack 115 of a reasonable timeframe for it to take precedence in the PH decision making process. This may well leave the Local Authority open to claims of not operating in an open and transparent way and allowing time for a meaningful consultation based on empirical evidence rather than heightened emotion. PORTFOLIO HOLDER DECISION - WHITECLIFF ROAD ETRO SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED VIA EMAIL Respondents may have also responded via the online form. (Text is displayed as entered by the respondent and may include grammatical or typographical errors)
No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
1 Councillor When I was a portfolio holder, Roxy’s work on the DIA tool was recognised as innovative, Felicity Rice environmentally essential, and vital given our (75 out of 76) declaration of a climate emergency. I understood that this was a leading piece of work, and that other councils may even be interested in using Roxy’s tool. Here is a screen print of two DIA’s for your attention. If this type of outcome was occurring within the finance department, I wonder if these decisions would have been allowed to proceed by officers. 116 No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) 117
We all know that transport is the one area (throughout the UK) that is not making improvements in reducing it’s carbon footprint. We cannot expect to continue to make the same decisions as we always have done and get different results.
2 Terence I'm appalled that vehicular traffic will be allowed through keyhole bridge again. Combined with the St.John opening of the new motorway through the park it will destroy what has become a wonderful destination for so many pedestrians for the last few months. Just to satisfy road hogging motorists taking a short cut from Poole town centre to Shore Road. Please do everything you can to keep the peace.
3 Kate Salter Can you please explain how the decision to reopen keyhole (remove the ETRO) can be justified when the councils own direct impact assessment report shows the removal will only have negative impacts (3 major and 3 minor). No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) Why are there no remedial/mitigation actions proposed to counter the negative impacts (as required by the direct impact assessment)? In addition, surely on the risk assessment the perceived risk of ‘increased risk of harm from cyclists vs pedestrians’ could easily be mitigated by widening the pavement through the bridge to segregate cyclists and pedestrians? Reintroducing vehicles surely poses a far greater safety risk to all vulnerable users ? If the future aim of the council is to encourage sustainable travel shouldn’t the closure be retained? The ‘portfolio holder decision record’ itself states ‘the installation of the measure aligns with national and local Transport Policy by creating a more attractive sustainable travel route although if removed, the route will still be available to sustainable modes’. Isn’t ‘more attractive’ better than ‘available’ if a true desire for more sustainable transport exists? With reference to the comment ‘The Council is under a statutory duty under the Traffic Management Act to ensure the efficient use of its road network. Removing the traffic route through the park permanently and diverting traffic around it is likely to make the road network less efficient and will increase journey times in the vicinity’. By identifying the fact that retaining the closure 118 makes the road network less efficient, it implies that the road through Poole park is a necessary through route and part of the road network. Is it not the case that the road through poole park is actually a private road and not part of the public highway? As an aside (which I will also refer to democratic services), it is highly frustrating as a member of the public to have to respond to consultation after consultation on effectively the same issue. Council protocol won’t allow a petition on the same subject to be submitted within 6 months. Why therefore is this additional consultation allowed? I have copied my ward councillors into this email. Many thanks for your clarification of the points above.
4 Emma Waters Please keep this bridge closed to traffic, it is much safer.
5 Ian Clarke I was pleased to see that apparently the Keyhole Bridge is to be re-opened to traffic soon , in Whitecliff Road, near Poole Park. I have used that route over 40 years, as a pedestrian, a cyclist, a car driver, and a motorcyclist, and have never witnessed any issues or problems whatsoever, with users being courteous and considerate. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) During November, a group called BH Active Travel distributed a leaflet trying to encourage people to ask for the continuationof the closure, whilst claiming it was due to be reopened in November, which was misinformation, as that was never scheduled to happen. It now seems that certain groups are trying to encourage the public to get in touch with you and Mr Greene, calling for the closure to remain. A post to this effect has appeared on Facebook today, which I feel you should be made aware of, worded as follows, from a facebook page entitled 'Crap Cycling in Poole'. BH Active Travel' BH Active Travel Keyhole Bridge ETRO - Urgent Action needed With the first consultation results - and BCP's own report - being in favour of this closure, there's now another, short-run consultation being quietly ushered in the side entrance to see if to enable BCP to remove this measure without anyone noticing, despite how the public answered the first time.
119 We noticed. We invite members to once again, fill in a very, very short survey (it's 4 questions, not like the initial one) to make sure this doesn't happen. Find the survey link below - it needs to be filled in before Wednesday. https://tinyurl.com/1o6kbem9 If you want to go further in the first instance please email Richard Pearson (Transport Network Manager) to show your support: [email protected]. You can also email Cllr Mike Greene who is behind the decision to remove the filter following a second, quick fire consultation on [email protected] Here's an example a few of us are sending, combined with our own personal touches of course: This second Consultation seems unnecessary given the evidence of the first however here is a submission. Of all the info and appendixes, I cannot see any reason to remove this measure, Overwhelmingly BH14 residents have greatly enjoyed this intervention, removing it for the convinience of a few, over the benefits to many shows extremely limited consideration of No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) the bigger picture, additionally keeping will greatly enhance the upcoming Tranche 2 ATF Whitecliff scheme Details from the first set of consultations:- Appendix C shows that accessibility issues would be greatly impacted, there isnt even a footway wide enough for a wheelchair there. Which effectively prohibits all disabled users NOT in a car. "The decision to remove the closure has both negative and positive impacts on different user types. However the decision may be regarded as negative overall" Appendix D, Decision Impact shows all negative or minimal effects and no green benefits. Of the formal ETRO responses (223) only 35 were objections 128 in support (57%) Opening this has linked Poole Park and Whitecliff in a time when public health and well
120 being is under spotlight even more and given a much improved park. Having incremental reduction in motor traffic is part of the BCP longer term aims through the Eco strategy- and not only BCP- an integral element of the Conservative Gvt 'Gear Change' agenda. Mr Greene- BCP are making great strides on elements of transport governance, ref Parking policy, continue this leadership with leaving this measure in place, an urban parkland is not a through route of convinience, its a destination place for all of our well being. Residents of the future will thank you for listening. #BCPCouncil #democracy #activetravel' It may be the case that you are inundated with emails or representations from the public, as a result of a number of very vocal pro cyclist/ anti motorist groups putting out statements like this. Could you please confirm to me that the keyhole bridge WILL definitely be re-opening, and the date that will be effected. A large red sign went up by the bridge when it was initially closed to traffic, claiming the closure was for 'Covid - Social Distancing' purposes, but it completely failed in that respect, as vehicles tend break up pedestrian groups, but with no traffic, pedestrians and cyclists were in very much closer proximity coming throeugfh there than before. Could you also please let me know what has prompted the re-opening. Any assistance you can give will be much appreciated. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
6 Rod Moores I understand from all the post appearing on forums that the keyhole bridge is going to open shortly ? I live in Twemlow avenue which has been affected by the rise in traffic and speed increase but I also use the bridge on my cycle and walking running so I have mixed thoughts . These are key things I feel need addresing . 1. At the moment you can travel at 30mph legally through the bridge. 2. There 30 plus signs of information on approach and a breathtaking view to look at. 3. The road is awful thus distracting vision to 30 plus signs . 4. Perhaps yellow marking on rd and through the bridge. 5. Perhaps sleeping policemen with gap in middle for disable vehicles prams etc. 6 . Most impact would obviously be what many have mentioned is the pedestrians have priority to be on the bridge itself as large as possible . 121 7. Could the speed limit along orchard and twemlow be also 20mph . I think the evening hill cycle lane has been a success and ideally could do with it extending by 5M at the top to avoid the pinch point where vehicles cut the corner . A separate issue to raise ,are there any plans to stop Recreation Road being used as a rat run as twice a day when schools empty its an accident waiting to happen , funnily the best road calming is the blocked drains and massive puddles when it rains ! You are probably aware of most of the above and I look forward to your response?
7 Michelle Over the weekend I learnt via social media that you are considering opening keyhole bridge on Beesley Whitecliff Rd, despite overwhelming public support to keep it closed. I live nearby and also started and manage Whitecliff Harbourside Volunteers, we litter pick and try to keep the park tide. Since the closure there has been a marked increase in pedestrian/cyclist traffic between the two parks (Whitecliff and Poole) this is exactly what the etro was designed to do. The bridge is very narrow and there is no disability access via the pavement so on every level it would make sense keeping it closed. It’s better for health fitness and the environment especially given the uplift in usage Like many others I see no justification for it to be opened again and would appreciate a response as to why opening is even a consideration. No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable)
8 Gerald This email is just to say thank you for your decision to remove the ETRO at Whitecliffe road Andrews KeyHole Bridge. I am so happy that I can now take a nice tour through one of my favourite roads without having to drive through a convoluted system increasing their noise and pollution from my vehicle ( I cannot Cycle ) I drive slowly and have never , ever had any incident in 55 years of driving through this bridge. Everyone has always been courteous going through, except for some cyclists who seem to think that cars and pedestrians should not be on the road. and sped though the bridge without any consideration. Reopening should now make them slow down. However, traffic lights could be an answer to those who are nervous. Anyway.
122 Thank you for what you have done - I for one am delighted.
9 Lucie Allen BH13 7PP I am writing to you as Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability and decision maker for the above ETRO, Mr Pearson as the Transport Network Manager and author of the consultation report for the above ETRO. In addition I include my ward councillors Haines and Iyengar, the councillors for the ward involved (Baron and Stribley) and also the leader and deputy of the council. As a resident in BH13, Whitecliff Park and Poole Park are my nearest local green spaces, which I use regularly with and without my family for dog walking, cycling, park running and visiting friends who live nearby. I am staggered to learn that Mike Greene is proposing to revoke this ETRO after the initial six month trial and following consultation. From a subjective view I can see this experiment has been a whole hearted success. I have seen many many more people using this route which joins two parks in a safe and pleasant way. Objectively, the consultation report reflects my own personal view. The route is not suitable for motor traffic being less than 2.4m wide with no pavement to speak of. If you are a pedestrian, cyclist or mobility scooter user you have to enter the road and hope that nothing is coming as vision is impaired by the bend. The report from Richard Pearson clearly indicates that it would be beneficial to keep this road closed to motor traffic. Indeed, the DIA report states that there would MAJOR negative impact on health and wellbeing, natural environment and transport and accessibility. In addition, the No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) summary of the equality report states that re-opening this road would have ‘negative impact overall’. In his ‘Reasons for the Decision’ section of the report, Mike Greene does not actually state ANY reasons for his decision, merely that he has ‘considered the results’ (which are in favour of keeping it closed) and has ‘decided to revoke the order’. I feel we should at least be given some tangible reasons as to how and why Mr Greene has come to this conclusion. With the results of the consultation showing almost 70% in favour of closure, I was disappointed to receive an email from Councillor Stribley, back in October 2020 (well before the consultation period ends in January 2021) stating that “The council has been overwhelmed with demands to return the bridge to its previous status” and that she would be “supporting the reopening of the bridge to all traffic”. It appears that the council have not been ‘overwhelmed’ with demands and in fact the complete opposite is true. It is also disappointing that the ward councillor had made a decision before the consultation period had ended. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is clear that health and fitness and tackling obesity are a priority. Providing safe and easy access to our local parks for those that are not driving should be 123 a priority, not enabling a few drivers the convenience of saving three minutes of their journey by opening the bridge. As this decision to re-open the bridge goes against your own report’s recommendations, your own Active Travel and Transforming Travel agendas AND your Climate Change policies, I really hope that you will reconsider this decision. In the meantime, for those councillors that are not familiar with how much the bridge is being used by locals, please find attached some photographs of locals enjoying this safe access to the parks. Please take particular note of the visually impaired woman with her assistance dog who says she can now use that route which she never could before. Councillor Greene would rather see the majority of these people disappear so that a few cars can drive through the bridge as a short cut. Please make the right decision. (Please note, photographs referred to were sent to the Portfolio Holder, however, consent of subjects unknown and therefore not included in the public record).
10 Sue Smith I was very disappointed to see that Mike Greene has decided the Keyhole Bridge should be reopened. In view of government policy and indeed the council’s own stated aim to encourage more active and alternative forms of travel this seems like a retrograde step. What is particularly disappointing and indeed worrying in terms of democratic process is the fact that the public supported the closure and overall the report did the same, for example from an equalities point of No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) view. It seems the request from a few drivers to have a scenic route home outweighs the health of the local population and in particular that of our younger generation. What is also disturbing is that Mike Greene (a Bournemouth councillor) seems to think Poole Park is part of the road network and a reasonable way to alleviate traffic congestion in other areas. The park was donated to the people of Poole for their healthy enjoyment. The council should keep it that way and address the traffic issues in other ways.
11 Sylvia Fox As a local resident I am appalled at the way this proposed change has been handled. I think I support the closure and declare an interest as I live in Twemlow Avenue. The impact of closure may affect me in a negative way but then again it might not .The reason for this is that the experimental closure has been carried out in abnormal circumstances .Road closures due to the Poole Park renovations plus the impact of Covid lockdown, with fewer school runs and workers travelling means that I have no idea of the change to traffic flow in more normal times. Added to that the procedure has been flawed . Constant rumours about whether the bridge will or wont be reopened do not create any confidence that any serious thought has gone into the proposal or the consultation process. Having read that the BCP online questionnaire produced a strong result in
124 favour of keeping shut, it is disturbing to find this was to be ignored.
12 Rebecca Please keep keyhole closed to cars … Carron It is such a blessing to be able to cycle / commute by walking. Etc through here . Local traffic of which I am a user can easily go round ... I run / cycle / walk through this bridge weekly
13 John Probert Yesterday’s ECHO report on the public consultation, which is very odd, says “most of the favourable views were lodged after ‘confused information’ was issued in October.” What precisely was the “confused information” and how was it issued? Please clarify this for me.
14 Simon BH15 3QD I am shocked and outraged to hear that you are proposing to remove the Whitecliff Rd ETRO O'Connor thereby re-opening this road and Poole park to again be used as a rat run! Myself and my family live near the area and most days we walk through Poole park and Whitecliff park for exercise and have felt much safer due to less traffic since the ETRO went in. As indicated in your own assessment, our safety and that of all vulnerable park users will be compromised with your plan just to enable some motorists to save, at most, a few minutes off their journeys! We have witnessed some cars travelling at excessive speeds due to improved road surfacing in Poole park. Removing the ETRO would incentivise more speeding motor vehicles through the park, going as No Name Your Organisation Your comments Postcode (if applicable) quick as they can, to try to save more time. Also, as there are now more private car journeys due to avoidance of public transport and a continuation of growth in car ownership, then the volume of rat run traffic is likely to be significantly greater than pre-ETRO. In your ‘Summary of risk assessment’, it follows that removing the ETRO will increase park traffic and therefore increase risk to the large numbers of vulnerable park users – cars vs people. This increased risk considerably outweighs the possible ‘safety disbenefits’ of motor vehicles continuing to use routes around the park which have so few pedestrians and so the risk is cars vs cars. With regard to the comments in ‘Consultation undertaken’, those discounted messages, that were received since 15th October, are now surely relevant as they are in response to a proposed re- opening of Keyhole bridge to through traffic which is your current intent. Hence, those messages should be considered in the Consultation review. With regard to ‘Summary of public health implications’, I don’t see how you can state this is ‘Broadly neutral’ when, as you state, there will be additional safety risks to vulnerable Poole park users. Also, the health risks of more pollution, eg exhaust fumes and carcinogenic brake dust from extra vehicular traffic. 125 With all the above in mind, please do not remove the Whitecliff Rd ETRO.
15 Rex Legge For safety reasons I wish to see the Keyhole bridge reain closed PORTFOLIO HOLDER DECISION RECORD
Report subject Whitecliff Rd ETRO
Decision maker Cllr Mike Greene (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability)
Decision date Not before 25 January 2021
Decision taken To revoke the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) to remove the EATF (Emergency Active Travel Fund) Tranche 1 point road closure from Whitecliff Road at Keyhole Bridge.
Reasons for the Decisions regarding Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) including ETROs are decision delegated to the Portfolio Holder. The Portfolio Holder has considered the results of the consultations to date, and the equalities, environmental, safety and wider community impact of keeping the closure in place and decided to revoke the Order prior to the end of the initial six month period.
Call-in and This decision is subject to a call-in period. urgency:
Corporate Director Corporate Director of Regeneration and Economy
Responsible officer Richard Pearson
Wards Parkstone and Poole Town; (Traffic diverted also has impacts in Parkstone)
Status Open
Background Background: The existing Experimental Closure on Whitecliff Road at Keyhole Bride was installed at pace with limited consultation and engagement with local ward members owing to the timescales dictated by the EATF Tranche 1 programme. EATF Tranche 1 measures had to be devised within 7 days, started to be delivered on the ground with 4 weeks and completed on the ground within 8 weeks of commencement. The original 6 month consultation period was to run from 19/8/20 to 21/02/21. This bridge is very narrow (2.7m wide) with no footway. The collision rate has historically been relatively low with no casualties at the bridge itself in the last 5 yrs. There were 3 road casualties at or near to the bridge in the last 10yrs. Two of these were at the bridge itself and in both cases pedestrians were struck by vehicles negotiating the narrow passage under the bridge. Before
126 the ETRO trial the approaches to the bridge, particularly from the Whitecliff side had poor visibility, which meant that pedestrians had to step into the highway not knowing whether or not a car was approaching from the opposite end (Parkside). Although a relatively low collision rate the closure was trialled primarily to create a low traffic route to make it more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists and to potentially benefit the vulnerable, elderly, and mobility/visually impaired people that may in the past have avoided this entry to the park due to the perceived danger. In winter the bridge floods and without vehicles present this makes it easier to resolve this issue in the longer term if the closure were to be retained. There have been no formally recorded casualties reported to the Council during the trial itself. Officers have recently been alerted to concerns regarding “speeding cyclists” and near misses with pedestrians as a result of the closure to vehicular traffic as part of the experiment. Observations have been made regarding the behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists and no incidents or near misses have been witnessed. The sight line issue relating to the previous layout that permitted cars has the potential to be replicated for cyclists approaching from the Lilliput direction however no conflict has been observed in practice and it is apparent that most cyclists are approaching via the Harbourside Park and the access gate and in negotiating the gate they have naturally had to dismount or slow down.
Options appraisal The options available are to retain the closure, modify it or remove the closure now, carry out a review at the end of 6 months as originally planned or allow the trial to run for a longer period up to a maximum of 18 months. The Portfolio Holder has requested that the measure be removed.
Consultation The closure has been facilitated by utilising an Experimental Traffic undertaken Regulation Order (ETRO) process which in itself is a consultation. During the experiment the Council has continually run an informal consultation to systematically capture informal feedback from the public: The most recent report with timing breakdown (issued 23 November 2020) advised the following: Period 1 - 19 Aug 2020 to 14 Sept 2020: 46% for vs 50% against from 114 people. Period 2 - 15 Sept 2020 to 8 October 2020: 54% for vs 43% against from 37 people. Period 3 - 9 October 2020 to 23 November 2020: 79% for vs 18% against from 201 people. Overall, up until 11th Jan 2021 – 270 (60%) agree or strongly agree with the measure, 164 (37%) disagree or strongly disagree with the measure.
An ETRO requires the Council to record formal objections (and support) for the measure and therefore a formal consultation has also been in operation
127 to capture written feedback from the public and this is summarised in the table below: Whitecliff Road (ETRO/2)
Response type Timing of responses Support Object Comment Query Total
Before advert date * 0 2 2 0 4 Pre- Implementation 12-day period between advert date & installation 1 6 3 1 11 date (07/08/20 – 19/08/20)
First 4-week period 7 10 1 1 19 (19/08/20 – 16/09/20) Second 4-week period 11 1 1 0 13 (16/09/20 – 14/10/20) Third 4-week period 58 9 20 3 90 (14/10/20 – 11/11/20) Fourth 4-week period Implementation
41 7 22 4 74 (11/11/20 – 09/12/20) Fifth 4-week period Post 10 0 2 0 12 (09/12/20 – 06/01/21) ** Total 128 35 51 9 223 *Information about the scheme was made public prior to the advert being published. **Currently ongoing – figures are provisional.
ETRO/2 has the most correspondence in the period from 23rd Oct to 23rd Nov. Following the press release issued by the Council on 15/10/2020 declaring an intent to remove the scheme - following the resurfacing works in Poole Park, there have been 178 messages compared to the total of 223. Of these, there were 109 separate messages of support, 16 objections, 34 comments and 7 queries. The number of comments reflect several instances of follow-up correspondence. One person accounted for 14 of these and a handful of others also provided between 2 and 5 messages each. One response received was on behalf of a family of four and the respondent specifically asked for it to be treated as 4 separate messages of support. It would appear that many of the people who have messaged in since 15/10/2020 were wrongly informed and had the impression that a decision to remove the scheme had been made. A leaflet was also distributed by a third party (BH Active Travel https://www.bhactivetravel.uk/) which mistakenly stated that Keyhole Bridge was re-opening on 21/11/2020. This did not relate to ETRO/2 and instead referred to separate works at the Whitecliff Road junction as part of the on-going access improvements works in Poole Park that resulted in the park roads being closed until mid Nov 2020. A holding response was issued on 17/11/2020 to clarify the situation.
128 Discounting the correspondence received after the confused information, a report of the feedback dated 6th Oct showed 9 formal expressions of support and 14 objections. In addition, if the informal responses are considered before this miscommunication then in early October there were 54% support for the measure compared to 43% against. The Council is not under an obligation to make a decision that aligns with a consultation outcome but must also consider the wider operational and legal issues.
Financial/Resource Negligible. The temporary bollards and planters used to facilitate the closure implications can be utilised elsewhere and were designed to be easily installed and removed in line with the experimental nature of the measure.
Summary of legal Removing the measure will revoke the ETRO and this will need to be implications advertised.
Summary of The installation of the measure aligns with national and local Transport Policy sustainability by creating a more attractive sustainable travel route although if removed, the impact route will still be available to sustainable modes. Poole Park is closed to through traffic until 10am. i.e. during the morning traffic peak period. In effect the measure diverted up to approximately 3,000 vehicles around the public highway network which is approximately 380m longer. A previous study in 2016 indicated that diverting traffic on this longer route during the pm peak increased journey times, in the worst case by more than 3 minutes. See Appendix D
Summary of public Broadly neutral. health implications
Summary of By removing the point closure there are some negative impacts on equality pedestrians, including the young, elderly and disabled who will find it more implications difficult to travel through keyhole bridge safely. However, making the route more attractive to cyclists may increase the frequency and speed of cyclists and the consequential risk of pedestrians individuals being struck by cyclists if the measure is not removed (this could addressed by adjusting the existing measure). There is some increased risk that a disabled person may find it harder to access the park if not in a vehicle, however the removal of the point closure would improve access to the park by disabled drivers. Overall the decision is regarded as negative. The Equality Impact Assessment screening form is included at the end of this report and the EIA can be found in Appendix C.
Summary of risk The Council is under a statutory obligation to investigate and seek to bring forward measures to reduce casualties as per section 39 of the Road Traffic
129 assessment Act 1988. There may be safety benefits of removing vehicle traffic from the bridge route and reducing traffic in the Park. This traffic will be displaced onto routes around the park and there may be safety disbenefits of doing that. The Council is under a statutory duty under the Traffic Management Act to ensure the efficient use of its road network. Removing the traffic route through the park permanently and diverting traffic around it is likely to make the road network less efficient and will increase journey times in the vicinity.
See Appendix B.
Conflicts of interest None. declared by Cabinet member consulted on this decision
Background EATF T1 and T2 Cabinet Report July 2020. papers
t
130 Equality Impact Assessment: conversation screening tool
[Use this form to prompt an EIA conversation and capture the output between officers, stakeholders and interested groups. This completed form or a full EIA report will be published as part of the decision-making process] Policy/Service under EATF T1 – Keyhole Bridge development/review:
What changes are being made Decision to revoke ETRO to the policy/service?
Service Unit: G&I Persons present in the Richard Pearson – Transport Network conversation and their Manager/Professionally qualified with 30 yrs experience role/experience in the service: Richard Barnes Conversation dates: Do you know your current or All park and road users and so users have all protected potential client base? Who are characteristics. the key stakeholders? Do different groups have different Yes. Disabled may typically have increased access needs or experiences in relation problems. to the policy/service? Will the policy or service change Yes. affect any of these service users? [If the answer to the three questions above is ‘don’t know’ then you need to gather more evidence and do a full EIA. The best way to do this is to use the Capturing Evidence form] What are the benefits or positive Whitecliff Road is one of multiple interim highways schemes, impacts of the policy/service to deliver pop-up and temporary interventions to create an change on current or potential environment that is safe for walking and cycling. Initiated by service users? Department of Transport, (DfT) funding, with the purpose to enable continuation of the transport network but still maintain social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The aim is to embed walking and cycling as part of long - term commuting habits and reap the associated heath, air quality and congestion benefits. As a condition of the funding the schemes need to be started within 4 weeks of receiving the DfT funding and completed within 8 weeks. BCP Council aims to deliver the schemes to ensure the Government funding is used to enable active and sustainable travel for people to get around while maintaining social distance. For the period of the funding allocation, public transport is discouraged to avoid overcrowding. Creating better spaces for cycling and walking will encourage local sustainable travel, to try to avoid escalating car use which has detrimental impacts in terms of congestion, air quality and heath.
Whitecliff Road specifically aims to create a safer environment to travel to and through the area on foot and/or by bicycle with safer and more sustainable access to the Poole park area. A further aim is to reduce the number of 131 vehicles driving through Poole Park itself.
What are the negative impacts of By removing the point closure there are some negative the policy/service change on impacts on pedestrian and disabled who will find it more current or potential service difficult to travel through keyhole bridge safely due to the users? present of motor traffic. Those using motor vehicles will find the park more accessible from the Lilliput direction. Will the policy or service change No, or only in so far as they are also road users. affect employees? Will the policy or service change Yes. The removal of the measure will increase traffic affect the wider community? through the park although it will simultaneously also reduce traffic on the diversionary route. What mitigating actions are The measure was experimental and therefore the decision planned or already in place for to remove the measure is returning the situation to the those negatively affected by the previous status quo. policy/service change?
Summary of Equality The decision to remove the closure has both negative and Implications: positive impacts on different user types. However the decision may be regarded as negative overall.
A full EIA is included in Appendix C.
For any questions on this, please contact the Policy and Performance Team by emailing [email protected]
132 Appendix A
WHITECLIFF ROAD UPDATE REPORT 23 October 2020
This Summary Report was generated on 23/10/20.
Overall 365 respondents completed this questionnaire.
This section summarises the results to the questions, broken down survey completion date (since 19 August)
Respondent Type
Are you responding as: (Please select all that apply)
A resident living in (or a road off) Whitecliff Road or Sherwood Avenue? (27) 7%
A resident living in Tremlow Avenue or Orchard Avenue? (27) 7%
A resident living in the Whitecliff area (but not in any of the roads listed above)? (77) 21%
A BCP resident (living outside the Whitecliff area)? (208) 57%
A visitor to Poole? (9) 2%
Someone who visits Poole Park and/or Whitecliff Park? (243) 67%
Someone who travels through the area for work, leisure or other? (176) 48%
Someone who parks along Whitecliff Road? (28) 8%
Someone who owns/runs a business in the area? (13) 4%
Someone who works in the area? (41) 11%
A member of a local group or organisation? (28) 8%
Other (please specify) (11) 3%
133 Are you responding as: (Please select all that apply) by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 298 114 37 147 Are you responding as: (Please select all that apply) A resident living in (or 7% 11% 11% 3% a road off) Whitecliff Road or Sherwood Avenue? (21) A resident living in 6% 8% 5% 4% Tremlow Avenue or Orchard Avenue? (17) A resident living in the 22% 26% 16% 20% Whitecliff area (but not in any of the roads listed above)? (66) A BCP resident (living 58% 50% 54% 65% outside the Whitecliff area)? (172) A visitor to Poole? (7) 2% 4% 3% 1% Someone who visits 69% 68% 70% 69% Poole Park and/or Whitecliff Park? (205) Someone who travels 50% 53% 46% 48% through the area for work, leisure or other? (148) Someone who parks 9% 10% 14% 7% along Whitecliff Road? (27) Someone who 4% 6% 3% 2% owns/runs a business in the area? (11) Someone who works 12% 14% 8% 12% in the area? (37) A member of a local 7% 7% 8% 7% group or organisation? (22) Other (please specify) 3% 4% 8% 2% (10)
134 Views on the changes
Whitecliff Road should be prioritised for walking and cycling at Keyhole Bridge. by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 297 114 37 146 Whitecliff Road should be prioritised for walking and cycling at Keyhole Bridge. Strongly agree (187) 63% 39% 51% 85% Agree (12) 4% 7% 3% 2% Neither agree nor 2% 4% 3% - disagree (5) Disagree (11) 4% 4% 8% 2% Strongly disagree (82) 28% 46% 35% 11% Don't know (-) - - - - N/A (-) - - - -
The changes have reduced through traffic in the area. by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 293 110 37 146 The changes have reduced through traffic in the area. Strongly agree (156) 53% 30% 38% 75% Agree (37) 13% 15% 14% 10% Neither agree nor 7% 11% 5% 5% disagree (21) Disagree (16) 5% 7% 11% 3% Strongly disagree (34) 12% 20% 14% 5% Don't know (22) 8% 12% 16% 2% N/A (7) 2% 5% 3% 1%
135 The changes make it safer for me to cycle in/through this area. by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 292 112 37 143 The changes make it safer for me to cycle in/through this area. Strongly agree (166) 57% 32% 46% 79% Agree (20) 7% 8% 8% 6% Neither agree nor 7% 9% 8% 6% disagree (21) Disagree (21) 7% 13% 5% 3% Strongly disagree (39) 13% 23% 22% 3% Don't know (3) 1% 2% - 1% N/A (22) 8% 13% 11% 3%
The changes will/do make it safer for me to walk in/through this area. by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 294 111 37 146 The changes will/do make it safer for me to walk in/through this area. Strongly agree (179) 61% 38% 49% 82% Agree (21) 7% 8% 5% 7% Neither agree nor 5% 10% 5% 1% disagree (14) Disagree (23) 8% 13% 5% 5% Strongly disagree (54) 18% 31% 32% 5% Don't know (-) - - - - N/A (3) 1% 1% 3% 1%
136 car or motorcycle by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 283 110 36 137 car or motorcycle More likely (25) 9% 13% 6% 7% No change (101) 36% 52% 58% 17% Less likely (145) 51% 31% 36% 72% Don't know (2) 1% 2% - - N/A (10) 4% 3% - 5% public transport by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 269 100 36 133 public transport More likely (9) 3% 4% - 4% No change (147) 55% 49% 72% 54% Less likely (50) 19% 20% 19% 17% Don't know (4) 1% 1% - 2% N/A (59) 22% 26% 8% 23% cycle by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 287 108 37 142 cycle More likely (175) 61% 39% 43% 82% No change (74) 26% 39% 43% 11% Less likely (20) 7% 12% 5% 4% Don't know (1) 0% 1% - - N/A (17) 6% 9% 8% 3% walk by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 286 109 36 141 walk More likely (172) 60% 39% 47% 80% No change (86) 30% 46% 42% 15% Less likely (24) 8% 12% 11% 5% Don't know (1) 0% 1% - - N/A (3) 1% 3% - -
137 Impact of the changes
How much of an impact, if at all, do the changes have on ... by CaseDate2
Break % Respondents 19 Aug- 15 Sept- 9 Oct to Total 14 Sept 8 Oct date Base 297 113 37 147 How much of an impact, if at all, do the changes have on ... Positive impact (192) 65% 43% 51% 84% Mixed positive and 4% 4% 5% 3% negative impact (11) Negative impact (87) 29% 50% 38% 12% No impact (6) 2% 3% 5% 1% Don't know (-) - - - - Does not apply (1) 0% - - 1%
138 About You
Do you own, or have use of, a car/van? (Please select one option only)
Yes (342) 96%
No (16) 4%
Why do you travel to/through this area? (Please select all that apply)
I live in the Whitecliff area (94) 27%
To go to Poole Park (289) 82%
To go to Whitecliff park (222) 63%
I travel through to get to work (59) 17%
To go for a cycle ride (197) 56%
To go for a walk (252) 71%
Other (please specify) (37) 10%
On average, how often do you travel to, or through, this area? (Please select one option only)
Every day (65) 18%
6 days a week (16) 4%
5 days a week (49) 14%
4 days a week (34) 9%
3 days a week (50) 14%
2 days a week (32) 9%
At least once a week (48) 13%
At least once a fortnight (31) 9%
At least once a month (20) 6%
Less than once a month (16) 4%
Never (-)
139 How do you travel through this area? (Please select all that apply)
On foot (267) 74%
Car/van (195) 54%
Bus (9) 3%
Bicycle (227) 63%
Motorbike/moped/Scooter (6) 2%
Taxi (1)
Wheelchair (4) 1%
Mobility Scooter (2) 1%
Other (please specify) (4) 1%
Are you aged: (Please select one option) (Are you aged: )
18 - 24 years (5) 1%
25 - 34 years (19) 5%
35 - 44 years (77) 22%
45 - 54 years (62) 18%
55 - 64 years (85) 24%
65+ years (99) 29%
Are you: (Please select one option) (Gender)
Female (170) 50%
Male (172) 50%
140 Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Please select one option) (Disability)
Yes - limited a lot (16) 5%
Yes - limited a little (36) 11%
No (270) 84%
What is your ethnic group? (Please select one option) (Ethnicity)
White English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British (298) 96%
White Other (9) 3%
BME (4) 1%
What is your religion or belief? (Please select one option) (Religion)
No religion (153) 54%
Christian (124) 44%
Other Religion (7) 2%
Do you identify as trans? (Please select one option) (Trans)
Yes (-)
No (306) 89%
Prefer not to say (37) 11%
141 What is your sexual orientation? (Please select one option). (Sexual orientation)
Heterosexual / straight (263) 76%
Asexual (-)
Bisexual (3) 1%
Gay man (5) 1%
Lesbian / gay woman (2) 1%
Other (specify below if you wish) (2) 1%
Prefer not to say (70) 20%
142 RISK ASSESSMENT RECORD Appendix B
Service Unit / School: G&I Assessor/s: Richard Pearson Reference: EATF T1WR
Activity assessed: Date: 10/12/20 Removal of point closure on Whitecliff Road – Keyhole Bridge Review date: ongoing
Hazards identified Who might be Existing control measures Further action required harmed and how Action By Person when responsible Operations team Motorists, cyclists Chapter 8 NRSWA compliance None N/a Neighbourhoo extracting point closure and pedestrians d Services Site (i.e. bollards and planters) Supervisor
Motor vehicles using Vulnerable road Point closure in place – protects from Monitor impacts on road safety Ongoing Road Safety Whitecliff Road as a short users (pedestrians cars but some concerns has increased Team Leader 143 cut following reopening of and cyclists) risk of harm from cyclists vs pedestrians the road. Appendix C BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Executive Summary and Conclusions Once the Equality Impact Assessment Template has been completed, please summarise the key findings here. Please send a copy of your final document to the Policy and Performance Team. Whitecliff Road is one of a series of active travel schemes that were provided during the Summer of 2020. In the context of the schemes being introduced on an emergency basis due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a single generic Equalities Impact Assessment, EIA, was provided for all the schemes. Questionnaire responses for individual schemes, following their implementation, are then analysed for equalities detail when each individual scheme is up for decision. Guided by local research and consultation, reducing the impact of traffic in each scheme area by improving the amenity for pedestrians and cyclists, will contribute to a more inclusive transport network. As some of our residents, especially in areas of high social deprivation, do not own cars, enabling cycling and walking and to an extent public transport, will deliver travel improvements for these communities. There are likely benefits to many of the higher risk people in society – including the elderly, BME citizens and people with heath limiting disabilities, by providing additional space for social distancing giving more confidence to travel locally. Prioritising active travel will result in less pollution and better air quality, this benefits all of us but especially people with respiratory conditions. Reduced conflict between motor vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists should improve road safety. 144 Responses from the questionnaire specific to Whitecliff Road from 7 August 2020 until 11 January 2021, with 450 responses, showed that younger people, people without a disability, all other ethnicities, people with no religion or other religions and heterosexual sexual orientations were all notably more supportive of the aims of the scheme. Men were slightly more supportive than women. Correspondingly older people, Christians, non-heterosexual orientations and especially disabled people were less supportive of the aims. Women were slightly less supportive than men. All white British/Irish ethnicities supported the scheme broadly to the extent of the total sample, but all other ethnicities were clearly more supportive. Consistency was shown with groups that agreed with prioritising walking and cycling at Keyhole bridge also indicating that through motor traffic would be reduced, thinking the scheme would encourage cycling and walking and willing to cycling and walk more personally. Groups that were less supportive were also consistent in being less willing to cycle or walk and anticipating the scheme would not deliver reduced through traffic or increased active travel. Unlike some other implemented active travel schemes there is very minimal loss of parking, 2 spaces, compared to an overall provision of 58 spaces. As a result, it is not considered that there is an impact for disabled motorists where a vehicle is their only means of transport available. The recommended decision is to revoke the point closure so that Whitecliff Road can be re-opened to through traffic. A perspective that through re-instating motor traffic there would be a negative impact on vulnerable road users including young, elderly and disabled people is not clearly evidenced in the responses to the questionnaire with only young people showing clear support for the scheme. It is possible that very few elderly or disabled people regularly use this location for cycling and walking and they mostly drive. It needs to be noted that 96% of replies stated that they owned or had access to a car, Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
however the council ward - Poole Town, has relatively low levels of car ownership, with 66% of households with a car available. Based on the responses to the questionnaire there is not a clear conclusion in overall terms of equalities impact and each protected group view this specific scheme differently. Considering the wider equalities benefits of encouraging active travel, noting the equalities and social deprivation profile of BCP residents that do not have access to cars, by removing the measure, more people in protected groups are likely to be negatively affected when seen from a wider transport perspective.
Part 1 - The Project
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council Emergency Active Travel Policy/Service under development/review: Programme – Phase One, Specific project – Whitecliff Road Growth and Infrastructure Service Unit: 145 Gary Powell Service Lead: Richard Barnes, Beth Barker-Stock, Richard Pearson. Simon Philp. Equality Impact Assessment Team:
12th June 2020 Date assessment started: 13 January 2021 Date assessment completed: What are the aims/objectives of the policy/service? Whitecliff Road is one of multiple interim highways schemes, to deliver pop- up and temporary interventions to create an environment that is safe for walking and cycling. Initiated by Department of Transport, (DfT) funding, with the purpose to enable continuation of the transport network but still maintain social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic. The aim is to embed walking and cycling as part of long - term commuting habits and reap the associated heath, air quality and congestion benefits. As a
Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 1 - The Project
condition of the funding the schemes need to be started within 4 weeks of receiving the DfT funding and completed within 8 weeks. BCP Council aims to deliver the schemes to ensure the Government funding is used to enable active and sustainable travel for people to get around while maintaining social distance. For the period of the funding allocation, public transport is discouraged to avoid overcrowding. Creating better spaces for cycling and walking will encourage local sustainable travel, to try to avoid escalating car use which has detrimental impacts in terms of congestion, air quality and heath. Whitecliff Road specifically aims to create a safer environment to travel to and through the area on foot and/or by bicycle with safer and more sustainable access to the Poole park area. A further aim is to reduce the number of vehicles driving through Poole Park itself. 146 What outcomes will be achieved with the new or The overall combined scheme aim, is to provide, initially temporary changed policy/service? highway changes to support social distancing requirements through safe walking and cycling measures – including • Closing roads to through traffic • installing segregated cycle lanes • widening pavements • review of parking arrangements to encourage safe active travel • bus stop measures. The changes will be implemented on a temporary basis with evaluation and consultation to guide which schemes will become permanent. For Whitecliff Road at Keyhole Bridge, a planter, placed as a barrier will prevent through traffic at that location, with the intended outcome of encouraging active travel – walking and cycling. With the level of traffic significantly reduced at the pinch point under the bridge a safer environment for vulnerable road users will be developed. Additionally, an improved environment for cycling will allow improved continuity of cycling routes in the wider area.
Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 1 - The Project
Are there any associated services, policies or COVID-19, Emergency Active Travel Fund Statutory Guidance issued by procedures? HM Government including related temporary processes for new emergency traffic orders. Network Management Duty as part of Traffic Management Act 2004. Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset Local Transport Plan 3, 2011. BCP Council Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (Draft December 2019) BCP Council Climate Emergency, declared July 2019.
Please list the main people, or groups, that this Improvement to the environment for cycling and walking in the area around policy/service is designed to benefit, and any other Keyhole bridge and the length of Whitecliff Road will form part of stakeholders involved: developing suitable routes as part of area wide active travel provision. Residents and visitors will benefit for active travel for commuting, education 147 shopping and leisure. Improvements at this particular pinch point will help with access by foot and bicycle to Poole Park and Poole Hospital nearby. Links to other cycle routes – specifically National Cycle Network 25 and the related Evening Hill scheme will provide access to leisure at Sandbanks.
Households living along Whitecliff Road will have reduced exposure to through motor traffic, however motorists may need to take a different route initially to their destination.
Motorists who regularly use Whitecliff Road as through traffic will also be affected.
With consideration for their clients, please list any BH Active Travel Forum. other organisations, statutory, voluntary or Local Chambers of Commerce and Trade. community that the policy/service/process will Organisations on the statutory consultation list for Traffic Regulation Orders affect: (TRO) including the emergency services – Police, Fire, Ambulances, Taxi associations/operators and DOTS Disability - community interest company. Bournemouth Transport – Yellow Buses Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 1 - The Project
Go South Coast – More Bus.
Part 2 – Supporting Evidence1
Please list and/or link to below any recent & relevant consultation & engagement that can be used to demonstrate a clear understanding of those with a legitimate interest in the policy/service/process and the relevant findings: General - Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Travel Survey, October 2018 to January 2019, a comprehensive local travel survey 148 with a sample size of 3,621. There is detailed analysis as part of the survey linked to equalities profiles. The availability of local information is important as the schemes are within the BCP Council area. National data on transport is plentiful, however use of local research will provide more relevant data to evaluate the equalities impact of these schemes. Some findings from the research are detailed below. If there is insufficient consultation or engagement information please explain in the Action plan what further consultation will be undertaken, who with and how. Please list or link to any relevant research, census and other evidence or information that is available and relevant to this EIA: The BCP Travel Survey, is useful through the research undertaken to consider the impact of the overall objective of the programme to increase cycling and walking on different protected characteristics. • 86% of respondents had travelled on foot within the last 12 months, the highest take up of any travel mode. • Respondents with a disability are significantly less likely to drive a car or van compared to those without a disability. • Males are twice as likely to cycle at least weekly, compared to females, with females citing personal security concerns and busy roads as a barrier to cycling to a greater degree than men.
1 This could include: service monitoring reports, research, customer satisfaction surveys & feedback, workforce monitoring, staff surveys, opinions and information from trade unions, previous completed EIAs (including those of other organisations) feedback from focus groups & individuals or organisations representing the interests of key target groups or similar.
Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 2 – Supporting Evidence1
• With car ownership and use proportionately lower in deprived communities and for younger people (16-24 Years), improving the viability of cycling and walking is anticipated to benefit these groups to a greater extent. • Respondents with a disability are significantly less likely to cycle or walk than those without a disability; encouraging cycling and walking could exclude take up by some disabled people. Specific to Whitecliff Road A questionnaire by the BCP Council consultation team stated on 7 August 2020 with an indicated end date of 21 Feb 2021. The scheme was initiated on 17 August 2020, allowing responses during the trial as part of the guidance issue by HM Government for the funding. The evidence detailed is based upon 450 responses. The key questions asked were- • Should cycling and walking be prioritised at Keyhole Bridge, on Whitecliff Road? • Would the measures introduced make it more or less likely that you would walk or cycle in the scheme area? (Questions about other modes of transport were asked, but increasing active travel was the main intention) • Does the scheme provide a positive, negative or neutral impact based on your circumstances?
149 When the responses were broken down according to protected characteristics, there were some differences. Age – younger people, but notably the 25-34 and 35-44 groups were more supportive of the measure, agreed it would help support walking and cycling, would be more likely to cycle and walk themselves and overall give a positive impact. Older groups, above 55 years were less supportive, felt it would encourage them and others to cycle or walk to a lesser extent and overall, the scheme had a more negative impact compared to younger groups. For the 18-24 age bracket, the support was less evident than those over 25, noting a small sample from this group. Gender – Men were slightly more supportive, slightly more likely to cycle or walk as a result and slightly less impacted by the scheme than women. Disability – respondents with a disability identified that limited their circumstances as either a little or a lot, were far less supportive of the scheme, than non-disabled people. The support was progressively less for those with a higher degree of disability. Disabled replies were much less likely to suggest that the measure would encourage themselves or others to walk/cycle and the scheme had a much greater negative impact compared to those without a disability. Disabled people considered the scheme would not reduce through motor traffic, compared to people without a disability. Ethnicity – Due to a low level of responses from some groups, all white British and Irish responses were compared to all other ethnic groups. All other groups showed higher levels of support and indicated that they were more likely to benefit from the scheme. White British/Irish people’s responses were very slightly less supportive compared to all replies, likely due to the positive response from the small sample size of all other ethnicities.
Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 2 – Supporting Evidence1
Religion – respondents with no-religion or other non-Christian religions were more supportive, more likely to cycle and walk and more positively impacted by the measure. Christians were less likely to support prioritising cycling and walking, less likely to cycle and or walk more as a result and tended to a more negative view of the impact. Transgender – There were not any respondents that identified. Notably, those who would ‘Prefer not to say’, their status, were less supportive than respondents that declared they were not transgender. Sexual Orientation. Heterosexual people were more supportive, more likely to cycle/walk and indicated they would be less impacted by the scheme than all other orientations. The consultation asked if respondents had access to a car. With 96% of respondents stating they did have access to a car, this compares with car ownership levels in the local council ward – Poole Town, of 66% of households. This indicates that car owning households are likely to have responded to the consultation to a greater extent than households that do not own a car. The measure resulted in a loss of two parking spaces with 58 remaining for use on Whitecliff Road. This is unlikely to have any equalities impact due to the level of spaces retained. Please list below any service user/employee monitoring data available and relevant to this policy/service/process and what it
150 shows in relation to any Protected Characteristic: See above.
If there is insufficient research and monitoring data, please explain in the Action plan what information will be gathered:
Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 3 – Assessing the Impact by Equality Characteristic
Use the evidence to determine to the impacts, positive or negative for each Equality Characteristic listed below. Listing negative impacts will help protect the organisation from potential litigation in the future, it does not mean the policy cannot continue. Click here for more guidance on how to understand the impact of the service/policy/procedure against each characteristic. If the impact is not known please explain in the Action plan what steps will be taken to find out.
Actual or potential positive outcome Actual or potential negative outcome
Locally, younger people (16-24 yrs.) are With car use highest amongst middle age groups and significantly less likely to drive than all other higher among older people than much younger ages, age groups. Enhancements to encourage more any measures prioritising road space to pedestrians walking and cycling will proportionately benefit and cyclists will affect the age groups that drive more. younger people. Older age brackets showed less support for the aims Both the younger (16-34 yrs. and 65 yrs. and of the scheme in the consultation, were less likely to
151 over) are less likely to cycle regularly than all travel actively as a result and felt the scheme had a other age groups. A better environment for more negative impact. Older groups did not think the cycling could encourage greater take up from scheme would encourage cycling or walking or reduce both younger and older people who currently through traffic as much as younger ages. cycle less. With under 35 yrs. groups more 1. Age2 likely to be discouraged from cycling due to personal safety concerns, this age group would likely feel safer from local measures to give more road space to cycling. Providing pedestrian areas with more personal space will give greater confidence to travel by foot or cycle for elderly people who could find crowded areas intimidating during the current heath situation. Younger groups identified in the consultation with a higher level of support and higher benefit, with positive impact from the scheme.
2 Under this characteristic, The Equality Act only applies to those over 18. Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 3 – Assessing the Impact by Equality Characteristic
Use the evidence to determine to the impacts, positive or negative for each Equality Characteristic listed below. Listing negative impacts will help protect the organisation from potential litigation in the future, it does not mean the policy cannot continue. Click here for more guidance on how to understand the impact of the service/policy/procedure against each characteristic. If the impact is not known please explain in the Action plan what steps will be taken to find out.
Actual or potential positive outcome Actual or potential negative outcome
Locally people who identified as having a People who identified as having a disability are less disability were slightly less likely to travel likely to walk and especially cycle regularly, compared regularly by car, both as a driver or passenger, to non-disabled people. With 70% of disabled people
152 than non-disabled people. For many disabilities mentioning heath factors/physical ability as one of the driving is not an option or through reduced reasons why they do not regularly cycle or walk, income motoring is not feasible. Prioritising schemes prioritising active travel will not benefit these transport by other means than cars would likely disabled people. benefit the many disabled people who do not Unlike other measures implemented elsewhere, there have access to a car. is very little changes to parking and so limited impact Personal safety is highlighted to a greater for any disabled drivers. 2. Disability3 degree by disabled people as a barrier to The responses to the consultation from disabled cycling. Improvements creating a safer cycling people, were notably less supportive to the aims and environment as part of these schemes should indicated that the anticipated benefits of the scheme help mitigate this, benefiting some disabled would not be as positive for disabled people compared people. to the non-disabled. The measure clearly had a high Where a scheme widens pavements and negative impact for disabled people that responded to removes any on street parking, the additional the survey. space will give visibility and easier movement with potential benefits for disabled people with mobility aids/wheelchairs and for partially
3 Consider any reasonable adjustments that may need to be made to ensure fair access. Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 3 – Assessing the Impact by Equality Characteristic
Use the evidence to determine to the impacts, positive or negative for each Equality Characteristic listed below. Listing negative impacts will help protect the organisation from potential litigation in the future, it does not mean the policy cannot continue. Click here for more guidance on how to understand the impact of the service/policy/procedure against each characteristic. If the impact is not known please explain in the Action plan what steps will be taken to find out.
Actual or potential positive outcome Actual or potential negative outcome
sighted people. The aim in creating more space is that confidence is provided for local movement during the Covid-19 pandemic, benefiting many disabled people, including those affected by mental health. From the specific scheme consultation,
153 disabled respondents, did not support the intentions above.
In the UK, cycling, both frequency and distance Prioritising a transport means, cycling, which is cycled are significantly higher for men than significantly more likely to be undertaken by men could women. Locally men are twice as likely too increase the existing gender disparity. By focusing on cycle regularly than women. Busy roads and the reasons why women cycle less, this gap can be personal safety are mentioned to a greater narrowed. extent as barriers to cycling; and personal Based on the responses to the specific scheme safety for walking by women, compared to Women were slightly less supportive of the aims and 3. Sex men. By reducing traffic and creating a safer slightly less likely to cycle/walk themselves or consider environment for active travel, the main barriers others would be encouraged as a result. Women also to cycling for women will be addressed. indicated a slightly higher negative impact of the The responses to the questionnaire showed measure than men. the scheme was supported slightly more by men, who were slightly more likely to view the scheme as encouraging cycling/walking and to
Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 3 – Assessing the Impact by Equality Characteristic
Use the evidence to determine to the impacts, positive or negative for each Equality Characteristic listed below. Listing negative impacts will help protect the organisation from potential litigation in the future, it does not mean the policy cannot continue. Click here for more guidance on how to understand the impact of the service/policy/procedure against each characteristic. If the impact is not known please explain in the Action plan what steps will be taken to find out.
Actual or potential positive outcome Actual or potential negative outcome
slightly increase cycling/walking themselves, compared to responses from women.
There are not any known positive outcomes There are not any known negative outcomes specific specific to gender reassignment, if following to gender reassignment, if following consultation, the consultation, the position changes, they will be position changes, they will be included.
154 4. Gender included. The specific survey included a question whether reassignment4 The specific survey included a question respondents identified as trans. Some responses whether respondents identified as trans, there stated they preferred not to say. For this group they were not any responses that identified as such. were notably less supportive than people that had declared their status – as non-trans. Wider pavement widths will help ease of The physical ability to take up active travel through 5. Pregnancy and movement around local areas for people with pregnancy. Maternity prams/pushchairs. There are not any known positive outcomes There are not any known negative outcomes specific 6. Marriage and Civil specific to Marriage/Civil Partnership, if to Marriage and Civil Partnership, if following Partnership following consultation, the position changes, consultation, the position changes, they will be they will be included. included. People from ‘White Other Backgrounds’ and Anticipated no overall detriment based on race for BME backgrounds are locally more likely to delivering these schemes. 7. Race cycle than ‘White British’ people, this is White British/Irish people’s responses were very correlated with car ownership levels – ‘White slightly less supportive compared to all replies, likely
4 Transgender refers people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs to the sex assigned at birth. Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 3 – Assessing the Impact by Equality Characteristic
Use the evidence to determine to the impacts, positive or negative for each Equality Characteristic listed below. Listing negative impacts will help protect the organisation from potential litigation in the future, it does not mean the policy cannot continue. Click here for more guidance on how to understand the impact of the service/policy/procedure against each characteristic. If the impact is not known please explain in the Action plan what steps will be taken to find out.
Actual or potential positive outcome Actual or potential negative outcome
Other Backgrounds’ are likely to be residents due to the positive response from the small sample from the European Union who rely on other size of all other ethnicities. transport modes, if they don’t own a car. Creating better spaces for cycling will have a positive impact for different racial groups. For schemes that deliver additional public
155 space there should be more confidence for BME people to travel locally, linked to the emerging evidence that BME communities are impacted to a greater extent by the pandemic. The responses to the questionnaire indicate that all other ethnic groups support the aims, will benefit more and view the impact as positive compared to than all white British/Irish people. The BCP Transport Survey analysis suggested The BCP Transport Survey analysis suggested that that differences in responses due to religion or differences in responses due to religion or belief belief correlated with age responses due to a correlated with age responses due to a higher higher proportion of Christians amongst older proportion of Christians amongst older groups. 8. Religion or Belief groups. From the specific scheme questionnaire, Christian Following the questionnaire, people that have respondents did not consider the scheme as no religion and non-Christian religions viewed favourable as those with no or other religions. the scheme as more favourable, more likely to Christians were less likely to walk/cycle as a result and thought the scheme had a greater negative impact.
Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 3 – Assessing the Impact by Equality Characteristic
Use the evidence to determine to the impacts, positive or negative for each Equality Characteristic listed below. Listing negative impacts will help protect the organisation from potential litigation in the future, it does not mean the policy cannot continue. Click here for more guidance on how to understand the impact of the service/policy/procedure against each characteristic. If the impact is not known please explain in the Action plan what steps will be taken to find out.
Actual or potential positive outcome Actual or potential negative outcome
encourage active travel and provide a positive outcome.
The BCP Transport Survey analysis suggested The BCP Transport Survey analysis suggested that that differences in responses due to sexual differences in responses due to sexual orientation orientation correlated with age responses due correlated with age responses due to a higher
156 to a higher proportion of non-heterosexual proportion of non-heterosexual identification amongst identification amongst younger groups. Non- younger groups. heterosexual people are linked to this, more For the specific consultation all other non-heterosexual 9. Sexual Orientation likely to cycle or walk than heterosexual people orientations were actually based on the sample, less so measures as part of these schemes will receptive to the scheme and considered they would be proportionately benefit LGBT+ people. benefit less and are more likely to be negatively The specific scheme consultation differed from impacted. this and showed that Heterosexual people were more supportive than those that identify as non-heterosexual. Any impacts are not known, if information Any impacts are not known, if information becomes 10. Armed Forces becomes available it will be included. available it will be included. Community The BCP Transport Survey included analysis of index of multiple deprivation. Residents 11. Any other living in the most deprived areas are factors/groups e.g. significantly less likely to drive frequently and have lower car ownership levels than areas of Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Part 3 – Assessing the Impact by Equality Characteristic
Use the evidence to determine to the impacts, positive or negative for each Equality Characteristic listed below. Listing negative impacts will help protect the organisation from potential litigation in the future, it does not mean the policy cannot continue. Click here for more guidance on how to understand the impact of the service/policy/procedure against each characteristic. If the impact is not known please explain in the Action plan what steps will be taken to find out.
Actual or potential positive outcome Actual or potential negative outcome
socio-economic lower deprivation. Where schemes are focused status/carers etc5 on creating a better transport environment for walking and cycling the measures will benefit residents living in more deprived areas accordingly. The Whitecliff scheme through linking with other cycle routes will better allow
157 people from more deprived areas access to leisure and the seafront at Evening Hill and Sandbanks, Any impacts are not known, if information Any impacts are not known, if information becomes 12. Human Rights becomes available it will be included. available it will be included.
Any policy which shows actual or potential unlawful discrimination must be stopped, removed or changed.
Part 4 – Equality Impact Action Plan
Please complete this Action Plan for any negative or unknown impacts identified in the assessment table above.
Issue identified Action required to reduce impact Timescale Responsible officer
5 People on low incomes or no income, unemployed, carers, part-time, seasonal workers and shift workers Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 BCP Equality Impact Assessment Template
Depending on the decision to Consider if the responses from the Subject to Project and consultation team. continue or revoke the questionnaire were representative. overall scheme, further evaluate Further investigate why responses decision. responses from groups that from disabled people indicated they were less supportive. were negatively impacted compared to other responses.
158 Key contacts for further advice and guidance:
Equality & Diversity: Sam Johnson - Policy and Performance Manager
Consultation & Research: Lisa Stuchberry – Insight Manager
Insight, Policy and Performance Team January 2020 Appendix D Decision Impact Assessment Report Cancellation of EATF T1 Keyhole Bridge experimental closure DIA Proposal ID: 173 Assessment date: 22nd October 2020 Assessor(s): Richard Pincroft, Richard Pearson Support: Roxanne King
The Decision Impact Assessment (DIA) is a requirement of BCP Council’s Financial and Procurement Regulations. It has been developed to help project managers maximise the co-benefits of proposals, reduce risk and ensuring that sustainable outputs and value for money are delivered through every project, plan, strategy, policy, service and procurement. The following report highlights the opportunities and potential issues associated with the above titled proposal. It has been assessed 159 against a number of themes and shared with BCP Council Theme Advisors for internal consultation. The RAG ratings and additional information have been provided by the project manager and may or may not have incorporated feedback from theme advisors. Results should be scrutinised by decision-makers when considering the outcome of a proposal. The results of this DIA will be combined with all other assessments to enable cumulative impact data across a wide range of data sets. Individual DIA reports should be included in proposal documentation and made available to decision makers for consideration. Cumulative impact reports will be produced annually or as required by the Climate Action Steering Group and Members Working Group.
For questions and further information, please contact Sustainability Team at [email protected]
Please note: This report is in a draft format and may appear different to future DIA reports.
DIA Report 173/RP/221020 160
DIA Report 173/RP/221020 Proposal Title Cancellation of EATF T1 Keyhole Bridge experimental closure Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Supported: Type of Proposal Policy Brief Description Cancellation of EATF T1 Keyhole Bridge experimental closure resulting None in removal of physical infrastructure on site at the location. Assessor Richard Pincroft, Traffic Manager Directorate Regeneration & Economy Service Unit Growth & Infrastructure Estimated Cost No cost Ward(s) Affected Oakdale, Parkstone, Poole Town
RAG reasoning and proposed mitigation/monitoring actions
Mitigation and monitoring actions RAG reasoning details of proposed mitigation/remedial action Theme RAG Details of impacts including evidence and knowledge gaps and monitoring (inc. timescales, responsible officers, related business plans etc) Removal of road closure will encourage car use and the associated emissions. Motor vehicles that are currently taking a longer route 161 Climate Change & around the park will have a shorter journey and there would be less None - removal of an experimental measure. Energy queueing at the Sandbanks Road railway bridge (pinch point) during the evening peak period. Removal of the road closure will make it less safe in the park from road safety perspective but increases natural surveillance in park due to Communities & increased activity. None - removal of an experimental measure. Culture Park less attractive with cars. Ending trial early so unable to ascertain public behaviour change/ scheme success. Waste & Resource Temporary measures can be redeployed elsewhere. No additional N/A Use resources/waste.
Trial too short to ascertain full impacts. If road reopens, less Economy None - removal of an experimental measure. encouraging for walking and cycling. Removal of the road closure will increase volumes of traffic on Whitecliff Health & Wellbeing Road and through park and will also potentially discourage take up of None - removal of an experimental measure. sustainable/active travel.
DIA Report 173/RP/221020 Learning & Skills Not relevant to this proposal. N/A
Removing the road closure will be detrimental to the park environment. Natural Environment Retaining the closure helps create an attractive, accessible active None - removal of an experimental measure. transport route. Sustainable No procurement involved in this proposal. N/A Procurement The biggest barrier to people cycling is busy junctions/feeling unsafe. Transport & This decision reintroduces traffic through what is currently a very low- None - removal of an experimental measure. Accessibility traffic route. 162
DIA Report 173/RP/221020 Agenda Item 7
CABINET
Report subject Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Portion
Meeting date 10 March 2021
Status Public Report
Executive summary To seek approval for the governance of BCP Council CIL receipts. The report covers proposed governance for both strategic and neighbourhood portion CIL monies.
Recommendations It is RECOMMENDED that:
(a) Cabinet agree that CIL Neighbourhood Portion will be operated as follows: i. Scheme 1 – Ward-based bidding process in Bournemouth and Poole; and ii. Scheme 2 – Allow bids from communities across BCP into the Strategic CIL pot where there are insufficient funds in the relevant area pots; iii. The bidding process to be held twice-yearly in April and October in each municipal year other than the first bids for the new schemes to be invited from May 2021. (b) Cabinet establish a member CIL Allocations Panel to make decisions on CIL Neighbourhood Portion bids. The CIL Allocations Panel will include the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Lead Member for Engagement, and the Directors for Growth and Infrastructure and Communities. (c) Delegate the final set-up arrangements for the bidding process to the Director for Growth & Infrastructure in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Lead Member for Engagement.
163 Reason for To provide a unified approach to the allocation of BCP CIL receipts. recommendations
Portfolio Holder(s): Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning Jane Kelly, Lead Member for Engagement
Corporate Director Bill Cotton, Corporate Director for Regeneration and Economy Kate Ryan, Corporate Director for Environment
Report Authors Julian McLaughlin, Director for Growth and Infrastructure Nicholas Perrins, Head of Planning and Building Control
Wards All
Classification For Decision
Title:
Background 1. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge on development introduced by the Planning Act 2008, as a tool for local authorities to help deliver infrastructure required to support the development of their area. CIL charges are set out in a Charging Schedule. 2. BCP Council inherited a Charging Schedule from each of the legacy councils that remain operational across the BCP Council area. These Charging Schedules, based on current rates of development delivery, generate around £3m to £5m of CIL receipts for BCP Council depending on the rate of development. 3. The collection and expenditure of CIL is governed by the CIL Regulations 2010 (amended), which establish the following parameters for how CIL is to be spent: Administration 4. Up to 5% of all CIL receipts can be spent on the administration aspects of collecting and spending CIL. The legacy councils all set up robust collection processes involving officers in planning, finance and communities who all have a crucial role in ensuring the money owed is collected and spent on delivering infrastructure to meet the area’s need. Using the maximum 5% of the total CIL as permissible within the CIL Regulations, will result in between £150,000 and £250,000 being available to help fund the collection process per annum. Neighbourhood Portion CIL (NCIL) 5. The CIL Regulations require that 15% of CIL is to be spent on local projects required to support areas where there is development; this is known as the Neighbourhood Portion. CIL Neighbourhood Portion increases to 25% for an area where there is a Neighbourhood Plan in place. In areas with Parish or Town Councils the Council must pass the Neighbourhood Portion directly to those local councils. In areas without a Parish or Town Council, the local authority retains the Neighbourhood
164 Portion but should engage with the communities where development has taken place and agree with them how best to spend the neighbourhood funding. Strategic CIL 6. This represents all remaining CIL monies after administration and neighbourhood portion have been set aside for those purposes. For the purposes of this report this element is henceforth referred to as the ‘strategic CIL’ as it is the element available to spend on delivering the strategic infrastructure projects required to support the overall development of the area. The Council’s first Infrastructure Funding Statement that sets out expenditure of CIL, including strategic CIL (and Section 106 monies) was published in December 2020 in accordance with legislative requirements. 7. The previous administration’s cabinet in February 2020 resolved to introduce a Neighbourhood Portion scheme for Bournemouth and Poole that pooled the monies into a central pot and allow open bidding from across the Bournemouth and Poole areas. Christchurch is required under legislation to operate on a Town and Parish Council basis for monies collected in those areas. A cross party panel was to be established to govern the CIL Neighbourhood Portion bidding process and oversee allocation of strategic CIL. 8. Following the introduction of a new administration in September 2020, an internal review of the Council’s CIL process was undertaken to ensure that the BCP process is fair, equitable and focused on addressing the demands put on areas arising from development. This paper sets out a revised approach that if agreed would supersede the decision made in February 2020. CIL Neighbourhood Portion Review 9. Following an internal review including an all member Seminar in December 2020, it is proposed to revise the current arrangement for the allocation of CIL Neighbourhood Portion to operate two schemes. The two schemes are outlined as follows Scheme 1 – Ward, Town and Parish Council and Neighbourhood Plan area allocations 10. The CIL Regulations require the CIL Neighbourhood Portion to be passed directly to those areas covered by Town and Parish Councils. The process of passing the CIL Neighbourhood Portion to the local councils across BCP has started and will continue to occur in April and October in each year. No change is proposed to the arrangements for passing monies over to Town and Parish Councils. 11. For areas with adopted Neighbourhood Plans, the CIL Neighbourhood Portion is to be ringfenced for the area covered by the plan. The Council will work directly with the Neighbourhood Forums and the communities they represent to spend the CIL Neighbourhood Portion monies for areas with Neighbourhood Plans. 12. For the former Bournemouth and Poole Council areas not covered by Neighbourhood Plans, the current arrangement is to pool the CIL Neighbourhood Portion into a central pot and allow open bids from communities across that area. In view of the CIL Regulations’ requirement that CIL Neighbourhood Portion should be used to address the demands placed on an area from development, it is proposed to amend the current arrangement to operate a ward-based approach based on the following principles:
165 The CIL Neighbourhood Portion that is collected from development in a ward in Bournemouth or Poole will be ring fenced to be spent in that ward; A bidding process will be established where communities from within a ward can apply to access the ward CIL Neighbourhood portion to deliver infrastructure that will help to address the demands place on their area from development in their ward. The bids can come from ward communities but must come with the support of the ward councillors. Ward councillors will be expected to work with their communities to identify suitable infrastructure projects for their areas; Adjoining wards can work together to submit joint bids that benefit the relevant wards to help address the cumulative impacts from development; Scheme 2 – Community Bidding into the Strategic CIL pot 13. It is recognised that some areas do not have significant amounts of development or are constrained by low or zero CIL rates but still have need for investment in infrastructure. To address this, communities in areas with low levels of CIL funds will be able to submit bids to the strategic CIL pot. Scheme 2 will also be available to Neighbourhood Forums with adopted Neighbourhood Plans to work with their ward Cllrs to submit bids where localised CIL funding is low or deficient in order to deliver required infrastructure. 14. It is proposed that bids submitted through Scheme 2 will, where possible, be supported by using any available CIL funds that have been collected in the ward, area or Neighbourhood Plan pot. The total amount awarded from the strategic CIL pot for any individual bid through Scheme 2 will be capped at £50,000. 15. An overall cap on how much strategic CIL could be used in any municipal year is not proposed at this stage but will kept under review to ensure there remains the appropriate balance between use of the strategic CIL for more local projects and the major infrastructure requirements needed to support the overall growth and sustainable development of the BCP area. Governance Arrangements for CIL Neighbourhood Portion Allocation 16. To govern the allocation of Neighbourhood Portion CIL it is proposed to establish a member CIL Allocations Panel. The panel will include the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Lead Member for Engagement and the Directors for Growth and Infrastructure and Communities. The panel will be responsible for assessing and deciding on bids submitted through either Neighbourhood Portion scheme. Appendix 1 is a draft Terms of Reference for the CIL Allocations Panel. 17. The bidding rounds for the CIL Neighbourhood Portion schemes will be operated twice yearly with bids formally invited in April and October in each municipal year. The panel will also meet generally around July and January and invite Councillors to attend to present initial ideas or draft bids with relevant officers to help guide the formation of a formal bid at the next available opportunity. It is proposed that the first bidding round for the new CIL Neighbourhood Portion takes place in May 2021 and then aim to follow the cycle as proposed below:
166 Stage in process Submission Dates Panel meeting dates Bidding Round 1 Formal bids to be April / May (to allow submitted by end of time for officer March assessment) Informal bids / ideas Ideas, draft bids to be July submitted by end of June Bidding Round 2 Formal bids to be October / November (to submitted by end of allow time for officer September assessment) Informal bids / ideas Ideas, draft bids to be January submitted by end of December`
18. The bids will be encouraged to come direct from communities as first principle. To support formal bids to the process, there will be a requirement for ward Councillors to extensively canvass their communities for ideas and to generate interest and ensure the projects are suitable to comply with the CIL Regulations. The bidding form will require there to be support from all Councillors in a ward to be accepted as valid. 19. To ensure the bidding process is as streamlined as possible and to avoid any party being subject to abortive work the Council will produce a clear set of updated guidelines that all applicants must adhere to. The draft guidelines are attached at Appendix 2 and the draft Bid form attached at Appendix 3. It is proposed that the final arrangements for the details set out in Appendices 1-3 are delegated to the Director for Growth and Infrastructure in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Lead Member for Engagement. 20. In order to manage the transition between the current system and the proposed ward-based system it is proposed that the CIL Neighbourhood Portion collected and available in the former Poole area (which to date has been collected in a single, pooled pot) is divided equally across each Poole-based ward Councillor to establish a ward pot from which the new system can be operated from May 2021. 21. The administration of the CIL Allocations process at officer level will be overseen by the Planning Department in consultation with the relevant other service directorates. There will be a need to fund dedicated officer time to support the operation of the CIL Allocations Panel, which is proposed to be funded through use of the CIL Administration monies.
Summary of financial implications 22. CIL across the BCP area currently generates approximately between £3m and £5m per annum depending on the rate of development and economic conditions. This is an important source of income for infrastructure at both the strategic and neighbourhood level. There is also up to 5% available to help fund the Council’s expenditure on administration. There will be officer time required to set up the proposed arrangements in this report, which will be funded through existing staff in the planning department.
167 Summary of legal implications 23. CIL is governed by the CIL Regulations 2010 (amended). The process and procedures will need to comply with the CIL Regulations as well as the Council’s own financial arrangements.
Summary of human resources implications 24. The Neighbourhood Portion element of CIL can be resource intensive. The arrangements in this report will need to be supported by sufficient resources across the various Council departments involved. The majority of the work is proposed to be undertaken within the planning service with support as required from finance, legal and other departments with responsibility for infrastructure delivery.
Summary of sustainability impact 25. None identified.
Summary of public health implications 26. CIL could help provide new and improved public open space and sustainable transport infrastructure providing a positive effect upon public health.
Summary of equality implications 27. The proposed approach is considered accord with equality principles by directing infrastructure to where development occurs. The proposed scheme also allows for all parts of the community to bid for funds through Scheme 2 further enhancing the equality credentials of the proposals.
Summary of risk assessment 28. CIL collection is dependent on market conditions. In this respect it will be prudent for projects to be funded in whole or in part by CIL to be based on realistic projections on CIL receipts.
Background papers None
Appendices Appendix 1 – Draft Terms of Reference for CIL Allocations Panel Appendix 2 – Draft CIL bidding guidance Appendix 3 – Draft Bid Form
168 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Allocations Panel Terms of Reference
Background The CIL Regulations and Planning Practice Guidance set out the provisions for the allocation of Community Infrastructure Levy to address the demands on an area as a result of development. The CIL regulations require at least 15% of CIL receipts to be spend on neighbourhood infrastructure (henceforth referred at the Neighbourhood Portion). The CIL Regulations require the Neighbourhood Portion to be increased to 25% for areas that have an adopted Neighbourhood Plan in place. The Council’s Cabinet have approved the process for administering this portion and have agreed that a Panel will determine fund allocations for Neighbourhood Portion as well as making recommendations on the use of Strategic CIL. Purpose
The purpose of the CIL Allocations Panel to is to consider bids from communities for use of CIL Neighbourhood Portion and other available CIL funds to deliver local infrastructure projects, and to allocate those funds according to a set criteria.
All decisions for the allocation of the CIL Neighbourhood Portion will be made in accordance with the criteria and form agreed by the Council’s Cabinet.
Panel Members Chair – Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning Vice Chair – Lead Member for Engagement Director of Growth & Infrastructure Director of Communities The application process is managed and administered by the Planning Department in consultation with relevant directorates.
Frequency of Meetings
Quarterly with formal bids for the CIL Neighbourhood Portion to be invited in April and October in each municipal year.
1
169 This page is intentionally left blank
170 BCP CIL Neighbourhood Portion: Bournemouth and Poole areas
Draft Bid Application Guidance Note
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This guidance note provides further information to assist communities in Bournemouth and Poole seeking to make a bid to access the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Neighbourhood Portion fund. It explains the level of information that is required to support a bid, general advice on how to correctly complete the bid form and how bids will be assessed.
What is CIL?
1.2 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a planning charge that local authorities in England and Wales can require of most types of new development in their area (based on £s per square metre) in order to pay for the infrastructure needed to support development. CIL charges are based on the size, type and location of the proposed new development. Poole introduced CIL in January 2013, Bournemouth in March 2016 and Christchurch in January 2017.
1.3 CIL can be spent on both capital projects and revenue projects, such as the maintenance of infrastructure. CIL cannot be spent on addressing current deficits in infrastructure provision unless those deficits are made worse by new development in the area.
What is the CIL Neighbourhood Portion?
1.4 The CIL Regulations places a duty on charging authorities to allocate at least 15%, (up to a cap of £100 per existing council tax dwelling) of CIL receipts to spend on priorities that should be agreed with the local community in areas where development is taking place. This increases to 25% where there is a Neighbourhood Plan in place. That amount will not be subject to an annual limit. This is known as the CIL Neighbourhood Portion (CIL NP).
The Council’s Approach to Allocation of the CIL Neighbourhood Forum
1.5 For communities in Bournemouth and Poole, the Council ringfences the CIL Neighbourhood Portion from development to the ward where the development takes place. Communities from within wards are able, with the support of their ward Councillors, to bid into the CIL Neighbourhood Portion to deliver projects aimed at meeting the demands place on their area by development.
1.6 For areas with little development and opportunity for CIL Neighbourhood Portion to be available in their ward, the Council operates a bidding scheme for communities to access monies from the Strategic CIL pot. The bids submitted through this scheme are submitted on the same forms subject to provision of additional information and cap of award of monies to any individual project to £50,000.
171
Neighbourhood Plan Areas with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan
1.7 Where a community adopts a Neighbourhood Plan the neighbourhood portion increases to 25% of CIL collected in the plan area. In the Poole area there are currently two Neighbourhood Plans adopted; Poole Quays and Broadstone. In the Bournemouth area there is one Neighbourhood Plan adopted – Boscombe & Pokesdown.
1.8 In Neighbourhood Plan Areas where there is an adopted Neighbourhood Plan, the 25% of the levy collected in that area will be ringfenced for use in the NP area. This will be spent in consultation with the Neighbourhood Forum and their communities.
Neighbourhood Forum Areas without an adopted Neighbourhood Plan
1.9 There is not a statutory requirement to ringfence the 15% CIL NP collected in Neighbourhood Forum areas without an adopted Neighbourhood Plan for their use. Any CIL NP collected in these areas will not be ringfenced for use in the NP area and instead ringfenced to the ward within which the development takes place. Neighbourhood Forums are eligible to bid into the Council’s CIL Neighbourhood Portion schemes and access funding in the same way as other parts of the community.
What can the CIL Neighbourhood Portion be spent on?
1.10 The CIL Regulations states that the charging authority (BCP Council) may use the neighbourhood portion of CIL, or cause it to be used, to support the development of the relevant area by funding:-
a) The provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure; or
b) Anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area.
1.11 National CIL guidance makes it clear that the charging authority should engage with the local communities where the development has taken place and agree with them how best to spend the neighbourhood funding. The guidance also emphasises the importance of the neighbourhood portion being used to deliver the infrastructure needs of the area in which the chargeable development has taken place.
1.12 There is a broad range of potential projects for communities to develop which could include (but is not limited to)
Environmental improvements – eg landscaping, open space improvements Public art Street furniture
172 Equipment for a community group Provision of more facilities for the community Projects that are beneficial to a local area Projects that contribute to broad community benefit
CIL cannot be used to fund:
Projects that will only benefit individuals (five or less) or a single household Projects which relate solely to religious purposes Political activities Retrospective projects i.e. where the spend has already occurred Projects that only require revenue funding.
The Bidding Process for the CIL Neighbourhood Portion
1.13 BCP Council has set up a CIL Allocations Panel to advise how the CIL NP should be spent in Bournemouth and Poole.
1.14 Community groups seeking to access Bournemouth and Poole’s CIL NP funds to deliver a localised infrastructure project will need to make a bid for the monies to BCP Council. The CIL NP Panel then reviews the bids and makes recommendations on which projects should be awarded funding based on an assessment of community and cost benefit and overall feasibility.
1.15 The process for accessing the CIL NP is explained further as follows:
Stage 1 – Bid Preparation: Applicants are required to liaise with their local Ward Councillors and local community in respect of their projects before submitting bids to ensure that there is likely to be support for the project. For applications funding Council proposals, applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss their projects with the relevant Council department before submitting a bid. In addition to talking with Councillors, the community and Council Officers, applicants will need to develop their bid in terms of obtaining sufficient information on cost, timescale and delivery partners to demonstrate to BCP Council that the proposed projects are deliverable.
Stage 2 – Bid Submission: The applicant then submits the bid for funding on the bid application form before the bid submission deadline as advertised on the website. BCP Council will periodically review the amount of Bournemouth and Poole CIL NP funds available to determine the frequency of future bidding rounds.
Stage 3 – Initial Assessment: The CIL NP Officer (s) will check the CIL application forms for completeness. Information on bids will be compiled for circulation for consideration by the CIL NP Panel.
Stage 4 – CIL NP Panel Review and Decision on allocation of funds: As soon as possible following the end of the bid submission deadline, BCP Council CIL NP Panel will meet to review the bids and make decisions on
173 allocating the money. To ensure compliance with the Council’s financial regulations, decisions on larger awards of money may be referred to the Growth and Infrastructure Service Director and / or Cabinet for a final decision. Following a successful Panel decision, the CIL NP Officer (s) will advise which bids have been successful and unsuccessful.
Stage 5 – Project Implementation: BCP Council will fund projects and release monies in accordance with its financial, procurement and legal rules and regulations.
1.16 This process will be reviewed on an annual basis to consider its ongoing effectiveness for distributing BCP CIL NP monies. The remainder of this guidance note sets out further information for filling in the form and the type of information BCP Council expect to assist with the assessment process.
2.0 The Bid Form
2.1 This section gives, additional guidance to applicants on filling out the form. Should you need further advice or information before making a bid please contact the CIL NP Officer (s) at email to be set up
Section 1 – Applicant Details
Community group / organisation
2.2 Where the bid is submitted from a community group, business or another organisation it is important for BCP Council to have these details provided. Please provide the company or organisation details in full.
2.3 BCP CIL NP is aimed at delivering benefits to local communities. The applications should therefore be submitted from groups or individuals representing community interests and not direct from Council departments.
2.4 There may, however, be instances where a Council department and a local community group have shared support on a project that could benefit from BCP CIL NP funding. BCP Council departments can therefore work jointly with communities to support bids in these instances but the bid itself must be demonstrably community-led and submitted from an individual or organisation representing the community.
Bid Form Section 2 – Project Details
Wider community benefits
2.5 It is recognised that the majority of Bournemouth or Poole CIL NP projects will have local (i.e. ward level) benefit rather than Bournemouth / Poole wide. However, there may be some CIL NP projects that go beyond just the local benefit and have potential to deliver benefits to a wider section of Bournemouth and Poole’s community.
174 2.6 BCP Council would therefore like to give bidders the opportunity to explain further how a project will deliver wider benefits than just the immediate community area.
Bid Form Section 3 – Community Support
Is this proposal supported by local Ward Councillors representing the area where the project will be located? If yes, please provide confirmation below
2.7 BCP Council aims to allocate money to those projects that have clear community support. Before making a bid, applicants (if not Ward Councillors themselves) are strongly encouraged to speak with their local Ward Councillors and get their support for the project. Where Ward Councillor support has been given please list the Councillor names on the form and provide any supporting evidence (e.g. letter or email confirming support).
2.8 Ideally all Councillors representing the Ward where the project will be located would support the project. There will be either two or three Ward Councillors for applicants to contact in each case and discuss their projects.
2.9 In addition to Ward Councillors, BCP Council strongly encourages bids to be supported by the local community that will benefit from the project.
2.10 Where this can be evidenced please provide this with the bid form. For example, a letter from the local resident’s association, petitions in support, social media polls (e.g. Facebook) etc. will all be useful information to demonstrate the level of local support for the project
Bid Form Section 4 – Project Cost
Total cost of project and budget lines
2.11 It is important for BCP Council to understand the total costs involved with delivering a project including ongoing maintenance. The form requires applicants to provide the following information:
The total (gross) cost of the project
2.12 Please provide, as far as is known, the total gross cost of the project (including VAT). The total cost of the project will not necessarily be the same as the amount of BCP CIL NP required as the project may be part funded from other sources. This information is to help BCP Council determine the various costs involved as well as the extent of BCP CIL NP needed to deliver the project.
2.13 Where possible please provide evidence of quotations to confirm the accuracy of the proposed project costs.
175 2.14 BCP Council recognises that some projects will need to provide less information than others due to different complexities. It is for the applicant to provide the appropriate level of cost information that they consider is required in each case.
Please also provide details of any grant / match funding already or expected to be secured to help meet some of the costs identified. Where alternative funding has been secured please provide as much evidence as possible i.e. award confirmation letter etc.
2.15 Please note that BCP Council may want to contact applicants before the assessment stage to clarify any of the information provided on the form, including costs. This is to ensure that as much information is provided for when the CIL NP Panel undertake the assessment of each bid.
Total CIL funds sought
2.16 Please provide how much CIL is being sought to help deliver the project. This could be either the same as the total project cost or just the residual amount required (in addition to other funding already secured) to ensure the project can be delivered.
Bid Section 5: Delivery Details
2.17 The project has to be shown to be deliverable in principle before BCP Council can allocate funds. This part of the form requires applicants to provide as much information as possible to demonstrate to BCP Council that delivery can be achieved without reasonable impediment including not placing un-due resource obligations onto BCP Council.
Expected project start and end dates 2.18 It is important for BCP Council to understand how long it will take to deliver a project from start to finish. Please provide details of the following:
Start date: Please provide the likely date from which eligible expenditure will be incurred
End date: Please provide the likely date by which all the activities / works described in the application will be completed and all invoices will be paid.
Will the scheme be on public or private land and has the landowner given permission for the project to proceed? Please provide details of support 2.19 BCP Council recognises that the majority of the projects will be proposed on Council owned land although there may also be some projects proposed on other land ownerships. Whether it is on public or private land, this needs to be made clear in the application form.
176 2.20 In either scenario, before the bid is submitted the applicants will need to have obtained permission from the landowner for the project to proceed on their land.
2.21 In the case of Council-owned land, applicants will need to discuss with the relevant department in advance of making the bid (i.e. Highways, Estates, Environment, Community and Culture, Education etc.) and provide evidence of support for the project and any conditions.
Who will deliver the project?
2.22 The applicant must make clear in the bid application form who will be delivering the project. There will generally be three routes for the delivery of a project; delivery by BCP Council; delivery by the applicant; or delivery by a third-party provider on behalf of the applicant. Guidance on these routes is as follows:
Delivery by BCP Council
2.23 The application must make clear if it is expected that BCP Council will deliver the project through use of its statutory powers. If this is the case then applicants should discuss delivery with the relevant Council service provider before the bid is made to provide assurances that there is capacity within the relevant department to deliver the project.
2.24 If BCP Council are to have any involvement in the delivery and / or future maintenance of the project, it is important for the applicant to confirm that the project has been discussed with the relevant Council department before the bid was made. Please provide confirmation details of which department was contacted, the officer you spoke to and the outcome from the discussions. Where no contact has been made with the relevant Council department then where necessary the bid will be referred back to the applicant to ensure this part of the process is undertaken before the bid can be assessed
2.25 If BCP Council is able to deliver it in principle but not until a certain date due to existing workloads and lack of capacity then the application should clearly set this out and provide details of when the project will be delivered.
2.26 If BCP Council will charge costs to deliver the project that the applicant will need to cover through CIL then this must be included in the information provided in Section 5 of the application form.
Delivery by the applicant or a through a third-party provider
2.27 If the project will be delivered by the applicant or a third party on behalf of the applicant, the application form should make this clear when completing the form. In this scenario, applicants need to be aware that BCP Council will require a funding agreement with the chosen contractor before releasing the money.
177 2.28 The funding agreement will include legally enforceable conditions on which the money is provided such as required quality of work, public liability responsibilities, project delivery timescales and ensuring the money is spent on the project bid and for no other purpose.
2.29 If entering into a funding agreement, BCP Council’s legal costs will need to be paid for in drawing up and executing the agreement. If this cost is needed to be funded through the CIL NP then this must be included as part of the project cost information under Section 5 of the bid form.
2.30 In all cases BCP Council will require the projects to be delivered in accordance with BCP Council’s financial, procurement, and legal rules and regulations. Further details in this regard will be discussed with successful bidders following the decision on their projects.
What consents are needed to deliver the project i.e. planning permission and how will these be secured?
2.31 The application needs to set out what consents are required to deliver the project. Consents could include obtaining planning permission, agreeing a lease on the land, obtaining a license etc. Where consents are required the application needs to provide assurances that they can reasonably be secured. Evidence from the relevant organisation (i.e. pre-application advice from the local planning authority) will help to demonstrate where any necessary consents are likely to be obtained.
Describe how the revenue / maintenance costs, if not covered by the sought CIL funds, will be funded for the lifetime of the project. 2.32 Given the financial constraints BCP Council has to work within it is important to ensure the use of CIL NP does not place significant additional financial and resource burdens on Council operations.
2.33 It is expected that the majority of bids will include the ongoing maintenance costs over the lifetime of the scheme as part of the overall cost information provided under Section 4.
2.34 For those projects that do not, BCP Council will need to see what alternative arrangements are in place for the infrastructure to be maintained.
3.0 Assessing the Bids and Next Steps
3.1 The CIL Allocations Panel will assess bids against a checklist having regard to the submitted forms.
3.2 Applicants will be informed of the outcomes of the evaluation by email, after the decision on their bid has been made.
3.3 Please note that the timing of when a successful bid can be funded will depend on the amount of BCP CIL NP available and where applicable,
178 Council resources. Successful projects may have to wait for sufficient funds to be collected. BCP Council will maintain a schedule of successful projects and contact applicants when sufficient funds are in place to deliver the projects. BCP Council will also manage the bid deadline process and where there is no money available reserves the right to suspend the bid process to allow time for existing successful bids to be delivered and sufficient BCP CIL NP monies to be built up to fund future projects.
State Aid
3.4 State aid rules can apply. Using taxpayer-funded resources to provide assistance to one or more organisations in a way that gives an advantage over others may be state aid. Public authorities are responsible for ensuring their policy measures and projects comply with the rules, and BCP Council will undertake such analysis and all necessary checks before awarding any applications.
179 This page is intentionally left blank
180 Draft BCP CIL Neighbourhood Portion Bid Form 1. Applicant Details: Contact name Community group / organisation Address Contact phone number Contact email address Charity number if applicable VAT Registered: Yes / No What are the aims of the organisation? i.e what has the charity or group etc been set up to achieve. This may be found on the front page of their constitution
2. Project Details:
Site address / location. Please provide a location plan if possible.
Description of scheme (no more than 500 words – please attach any supplementary information such as supporting drawings, photos or brochures.
Briefly describe how the scheme will support and benefit the development of your local area by funding either a) the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure; or b) anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area. Explain the benefits to the local community that delivery of the project will bring:
Will the project provide wider Bournemouth / Poole community benefits? If any, please explain:
3. Community Support: Is this proposal supported by local Ward Councillors representing the area where the project will be located? If yes please provide confirmation below:
In addition to any Ward Councillor support, please provide confirmation of other local community support for the project:
4. Project Cost (including VAT): Total cost of project and budget lines. Please provide details of the following: The total (gross) cost of the project. Include separated detailed cost breakdown if necessary. Details of any additional funding secured from other sources to help deliver the project Total CIL funds sought: £
181 If the total CIL funds sought exceed £100,000, please provide the exceptional reasons why the Council should consider allocating this level of funding:
Please state if the bid is being submitted through Scheme 1 or Scheme 2. If Scheme 2 please provide details and justification for use of this route:
5. Delivery Details: Please provide the anticipated project start and end dates:
Will the scheme be on public or private land and has the landowner given permission for the project to proceed? Please provide details of support:
Who will deliver the project? (e.g. the Council, applicant or a 3rd party):
If relevant, has this project been discussed with the relevant Council department that would be responsible for delivery and / or future maintenance? Please provide details:
What consents are needed to deliver the project i.e. planning permission and how will these be secured?
Describe how the revenue / maintenance costs, if not covered by the sought CIL funds, will be funded for the lifetime of the project:
6. Other matters Please confirm that you have no conflict of interest with this grant. Eg you or member of your family does not benefit from the work of this organisation, by ticking this box
How will you be able to monitor the success of the project you are asking to be funded? It will be the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the money given is spent correctly. Please tell us how you will do that.
Name of bank account the grant is to be paid into : The Council’s preferred method of payment is through bank transfer. We need a bank account name together with their bank’s details for an external charity or residents group etc. Projects within the Council will be paid by a finance transfer so we will need a cost code.
Bank Account Name: Name of Bank:
Sort Code: Account number:
182 Will this project mainly benefit a particular group, e.g. black or ethnic minority/older/young. If so please give details: Although not absolutely essential, this question allows us to monitor where council grants are going and ensure that they are being distributed fairly.
Are there any other implications from this project that might impact (positively or negatively) on a group that has protection under the Equality Act 2010 (i.e. age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion, or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity.)?
IMPORTANT If the organisation serves vulnerable people, e.g. older people, children, disabled people etc., we have a duty to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place. Please confirm by signing below that you have checked that the organisation has the correct policies, e.g. Child Protection Policy, Vulnerable Adults Policy, Equal Opportunities Policy. Please enclose copies if possible.
Signature:
Date:
By signing and submitting this application you are agreeing that the statements that you have made are correct and that any grant paid will be subject to return to ? if found not to have being used for the purposes stated.
Please note that although we will endeavor to give as much support as possible, incomplete applications will be returned to you.
183 This page is intentionally left blank
184 Agenda Item 8
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD
Report subject Forward Plan
Meeting date 1 March 2021
Status Public Report
Executive summary The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Board have worked with Officers to identify the priority areas of work for the Board with contributions from the Board members. The work priorities of the Board have been developed on the basis of risk. The proposed Forward Plan is attached at Appendix A. The Board is asked to consider the proposals contained in the Forward Plan and approve or amend the contents. The current published Cabinet Forward Plan is attached at Appendix B to aid the Board in deciding on its priorities for scrutiny.
Recommendations It is RECOMMENDED that the Overview and Scrutiny Board amend as appropriate and then approve the Forward Plan attached at Appendix A to this report.
Reason for The Council’s Constitution requires all Overview and Scrutiny recommendations bodies to set out proposed work in a Forward Plan which will be published with each agenda.
185 Portfolio Holder(s): Not applicable
Corporate Director Graham Farrant, Chief Executive
Contributors Lindsay Marshall, Overview and Scrutiny Specialist
Wards N/A
Classification For Decision
Title:
Background 1. All Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) bodies are required by the Constitution to consider work priorities and set these out in a Forward Plan. When approved, this should be published with each agenda. 2. The Constitution requires that the Forward Plan of O&S bodies shall consist of work aligned to the principles of the function. The BCP Council O&S function is based upon six principles: 1. Contributes to sound decision making in a timely way by holding decision makers to account as a ‘critical friend’. 2. A member led and owned function – seeks to continuously improve through self-reflection and development. Enables the voice and concerns of the public to be heard and reflected in the Council’s decision-making process. 3. Engages in decision making and policy development at an appropriate time to be able to have influence. 4. Contributes to and reflects the vision and priorities of the council. 5. Agile – able to respond to changing and emerging priorities at the right time with flexible working methods. 3. The O&S Board may take suggestions from a variety of sources to form its Forward Plan. This may include suggestions from members of the public, Officers of the Council, Portfolio Holders, the Cabinet and Council, members of the Board, and other Councillors who are not on the Board. 4. The Constitution requires that all suggestions for O&S work will be accompanied by detail outlining the background to the issue suggested, the proposed method of undertaking the work and likely timescale associated, and the anticipated outcome and value to be added by the work proposed. No item of work shall join the Forward Plan of the O&S Board without an assessment of this information.
186 Summary of financial implications 5. When establishing a Forward Plan, the Constitution requires the Overview and Scrutiny Board to take into account the resources, including Councillor availability, Officer and financial resources, available to support their proposals. 6. To ensure sufficient resource availability across all O&S bodies, Officer advice is that, in addition to agenda items, one additional item of scrutiny inquiry work may be commissioned by an Overview and Scrutiny body at any one time. This may take the form of a working group or task and finish group, for example. Bodies commissioned by the Overview and Scrutiny Board may have conferred upon them the power to act on behalf of the parent body in considering issues within the remit of the parent body and making recommendations directly to Portfolio Holders, Cabinet, Council or other bodies or people within the Council or externally as appropriate.
Summary of legal implications 7. The Council’s Constitution requires all Overview and Scrutiny bodies to set out proposed work in a Forward Plan which will be published with each agenda.
Summary of human resources implications 8. N/A to this decision
Summary of environmental impact 9. N/A to this decision
Summary of public health implications 10. N/A to this decision
Summary of equality implications 11. Any member of the public may make suggestions for Overview and Scrutiny work. Further detail on this process is included with Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution.
Summary of risk assessment 12. N/A to this decision.
Background papers None
Appendices Appendix A – Overview and Scrutiny Board proposed Forward Plan Appendix B – Published Cabinet Forward Plan
187 This page is intentionally left blank
188 Forward Plan – BCP Overview and Scrutiny Board Updated 11.01.20 Subject and background Anticipated benefits and How will the scrutiny Lead Officer / value to be added by O&S be done? Cabinet Portfolio engagement Holder
Meeting Date – 1 March 2021
Call-in of Decision – Whitecliff Road ERO Call-In is the exercise of Consideration of call-in Cllr M Green – Overview and Scrutiny’s report to Committee Transport and To consider a call-in request regarding the Cabinet statutory power to review an Sustainability Member decision to revoke the Experimental Traffic Executive decision which has Regulation Order (ETRO) to remove the EATF been made but not carried out (Emergency Active Travel Fund) Tranche 1 point to enable a review of the road closure from Whitecliff Road at Keyhole Bridge. decision. The O&S Board may make comments to Cabinet to
189 review the decision
Scrutiny of Cabinet Items To enable the Board to Scrutiny of Cabinet Cllr P Broadhead – consider proposed Cabinet reports and invitations to Regeneration, Economy Items for scrutiny will include the following: decisions and to make Cabinet Portfolio Holders and Strategic Planning
recommendations to Cabinet to respond to questions. Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood as appropriate. Portion The Future of Regeneration in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
Cabinet Member Report: Portfolio Holder for One of a number of proposed Written report provided Cllr M Iyengar – Tourism, Leisure and Culture themed sessions with Cabinet by the Cabinet member Tourism, Leisure and Portfolio Holders, this will and published with the Culture To hear from the Cabinet Member on current and allow the Board to gain an Board agenda, based on proposed priorities within the remit of this Portfolio, understanding of Cabinet a remit set by the Board. including risks, challenges and opportunities. priorities across the full range Discussion at the Board Questions to the Cabinet member are invited in of council services and to be based on this advance from all non-Executive councillors to inform provides opportunity for in report. the Cabinet member’s discussions with the Board. Subject and background Anticipated benefits and How will the scrutiny Lead Officer / value to be added by O&S be done? Cabinet Portfolio engagement Holder
Areas of the Council covered by this Portfolio: depth discussion and challenge. Seafront-resort development, Questions in advance tourism development, The Board can use the invited from all franchises/concessions, information to understand councillors – to be major events, where it can add value to the provided to the Cabinet sports & exercise, work of the council in its Member to inform the arts & culture and libraries. scrutiny Forward Plan. preparation of his report. All non-Executive councillors, via the Board, have the opportunity to raise matters with the Cabinet Member and fulfil the role of critical friend to the Cabinet. 190 Meeting Date – 1 April 2021
Scrutiny of Cabinet Items To enable the Board to Scrutiny of Cabinet To be confirmed consider proposed Cabinet reports and invitations to Items for scrutiny are still to be determined based on decisions and to make Cabinet Portfolio Holders the Cabinet Forward Plan but will include the recommendations to Cabinet to respond to questions. following: as appropriate. Homelessness Strategy
Commissioned Work Work commissioned by the Board (for example task and finish groups and working groups) is listed below: Note – to provide sufficient resource for effective scrutiny, one item of commissioned work will run at a time. Further commissioned work can commence upon completion of previous work. Subject and background Anticipated benefits and How will the scrutiny Lead Officer / value to be added by O&S be done? Cabinet Portfolio engagement Holder
1. Working Group – Development of the BCP Local To fulfil the ‘overview’ element A Working Group. The Councillor Philip Plan of the Board’s role in assisting Chairman was agreed as Broadhead, Portfolio with the development of policy lead member with Holder for Regeneration, At its meeting on 7 December 2020 the Board agreed authority to determine Economy and Strategic to establish a working group to assist in the final membership. Planning development of the BCP Local Plan. Expected timescales – a The Group held its initial meeting on 20 January. number of working group Regular reports on recommendations and actions of meetings from Jan- May the working group will be reported to the O&S Board. 2021.
2. Working Group – Economy and Tourism Impact TBC Working Group has not TBC
191 of Covid 19 yet met. The Board needs to determine if the Proposed at the Board meeting in July by the Group is still required Chairman. and how it would be Update - Agreed at meeting of 7 December 2020 to reconstituted. consider whether this item is still required following a presentation from the relevant portfolio holder planned for January 2021; an update on the council’s response to the covid pandemic planned for February; and consideration of the Economic Development Strategy, also planned for February 2021 scrutiny. Items to be programmed The following items have been identified by the Overview and Scrutiny Board as requiring further scrutiny. Dates are TBC.
Items previously agreed by the Board for Pre-Cabinet decision Scrutiny
3. Pay and Reward Strategy To enable the Board to test, Scrutiny of Cabinet Matti Raudsepp, challenge and contribute to report and invitation to Director of Subject and background Anticipated benefits and How will the scrutiny Lead Officer / value to be added by O&S be done? Cabinet Portfolio engagement Holder
The Board considered this issue prior to a Cabinet the development of the Cabinet Portfolio Holder Organisational decision in September 2019. The Board requested Strategy. to respond to questions. Development. Cllr Drew that they have an opportunity for further scrutiny prior Mellor – Transformation
to Cabinet agreeing the final Strategy. and Finance
Update – Report taken to the O&S Board meeting on 4 January 4. Poole Town Centre Master Plan To enable the Board the TBC Cllr Philip Broadhead, opportunity to further Portfolio Holder for At its meeting in December 2019 the Board scrutinise the detail of the Regeneration, Economy requested to undertake further scrutiny of the Master Plan for Poole Town and Strategic Planning Masterplan for Poole town centre prior to its further Centre regeneration in further consultation detail once drawn up and prior 192 Update - Agreed at meeting of 7 December 2020 to to further consultation. consider the requirement for this item following a presentation from the relevant Portfolio Holder planned for January 2021.
Other items previously agreed by the Board
5. Lansdowne Digital Pilot To enable the Board to Chairman and Vice- TBC maintain an oversight of the Chairman to consider The Board requested, at its meeting in November findings. and determine the best 2019, that the findings of the continuous monitoring method for O&S Board to for the Lansdowne Pilot be reported. monitor this. Update – Agreed at meeting of 7 December 2020 to retain this item until data is available to monitor using the public website regarding the Lansdowne Pilot - see the Electromagnetic Field (EMF) monitoring platform, available to view at the following link:
Subject and background Anticipated benefits and How will the scrutiny Lead Officer / value to be added by O&S be done? Cabinet Portfolio engagement Holder
https://emfmonitoring.arcatelecom.com/en/public/bcp- council-emf-monitoring/
6. Acquisition and Compulsory Purchase Order To enable the Board to test, TBC TBC (CPO) Strategy challenge and contribute to the development of this At its meeting in December 2019 the Board strategy prior to its final requested to undertake further scrutiny of this adoption. strategy, which was referred to as part of the Poole Regeneration report.
7. Review of Leisure Centre Management To enable the Board to have TBC Cllr Mohan Iyengar, an early opportunity to Portfolio Holder for At its meeting in December 2019 the Board agreed to contribute to the development Tourism, Leisure and receive information from the consultants appointed to
193 of the Leisure Centre Review. Culture undertake the Leisure Services Review prior to its report back to Cabinet.
Road maintenance across the BCP area Cllr Mark Anderson – 8. To enable the Board to have TBD At its meeting on 2 November the Board agreed to Environment, Cleansing overview of this issue and include this item following consideration of a and Waste contribute to the development Councillor request. of the related policy for BCP
Council. Update - Agreed at meeting of 7 December2020 to consider the direction and timing of this item following a presentation from the Environment Portfolio Holder planned for February 2021.
Subject and background Anticipated benefits and How will the scrutiny Lead Officer / value to be added by O&S be done? Cabinet Portfolio engagement Holder
Tree management across the BCP area 9. To enable the Board to have TBD Cllr Mark Anderson - At its meeting on 2 November the Board agreed to overview of this issue and Environment, Cleansing include this item following consideration of a contribute to the development and Waste Councillor request. of the related policy for BCP
Council. Update - Agreed at meeting of 7 December 2020 to consider the direction and timing of this item following a presentation from the Environment Portfolio Holder planned for February 2021.
Recurring Items
10. Crime and Disorder Scrutiny To fulfil the Board’s statutory Annual report – August Cllr May Haines –
194 responsibility for Crime and Community Safety To include scrutiny of the Community Safety Disorder Scrutiny Partnership annual report
11. Green Credentials To enable the Board to retain Annual Report to O&S in Mike Greene, Portfolio oversight of the Council’s December Holder for Transport and An annual report on the Council’s progress to assess performance against climate Sustainability our performance against targets in respect of climate change targets and make change. regular recommendations as required.
CABINET FORWARD PLAN – 1 MARCH 2021 TO 30 JUNE 2021 (PUBLICATION DATE – 19 February 2021)
What is the Wha t is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)? The BCP No Cabinet Debra Jones Children and 195 10 Mar 2021 Young People’s Plan BCP Council Cabinet are ask to No Health and Jonathan O'Connell Open consider the draft BCP Suicide Adult Social Prevention Plan Council Suicide Care Overview Prevention Plan for and Scrutiny adoption and Committee publication. 18 Jan 2021
Cabinet 10 Mar 2021 What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
LTP Capital To seek approval for No Cabinet Tim Forrester Open the proposed 2021/22 Programme 10 Mar 2021 LTP Capital 2021/22 Programme. Council 27 Apr 2021
Community To review No Cabinet Nick Perrins Open
196 arrangements for the Infrastructure 10 Mar 2021 Levy allocation of CIL Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Portion Portion
Sale of Cabinet to recommend No Cabinet Christchurch Sam Munnings Open to Council the sale of Christchurch 10 Mar 2021 Town Christchurch By-Pass By-Pass Car Car Park Park Council 27 Apr 2021 What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
The Future of This report summarises No Cabinet All Wards Linda Krywald Open the opportunities and Regeneration in 10 Mar 2021 Bournemouth, the Council’s ambitions Christchurch for regeneration in the and Poole BCP area. It seeks to strengthen the Council’s capacity to deliver, setting out an approach for reviewing
197 and progressing the available options to realise those opportunities and ambitions. The report sets out the options for increasing our regeneration delivery capacity, working with an urban regeneration company and other forms of partnerships as well as sourcing external consultancy input.
What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Poole Business To seek Cabinet No Cabinet Poole Town Chris Shephard, Open approval to vote in Improvement 14 Apr 2021 Adrian Trevett District favour of Poole Business Improvement District, in its re-ballot in May 2021
Management & Future management of No Cabinet All Wards Dan Stone Open
198 BCP Leisure Centres Development of 14 Apr 2021 Anthony Rogers Leisure Centres Jan Hill Chris Saunders What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Stour Valley To endorse BCP Yes Cabinet Bearwood & Michael Rowland Open Council becoming a Park 14 Apr 2021 Merley; Partnership and member of the Stour Christchurch Strategy Valley Park Town; partnership. Previously Commons; Bournemouth and East Poole were signed up, Southbourn but Christchurch was e & Tuckton; not. Kinson;
199 To inform Cabinet on Littledown & the engagement, Iford; consultation and Mudeford, adoption timetable for Stanpit & the Stour Valley Park West Strategy and Stour Highcliffe; Valley Park Masterplan Muscliff & - funded through the Strouden Future Parks Park; programme. Redhill & Northbourne What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
BCP To co-produce a Yes Cabinet All Wards BCP residents, Launch event Lorraine Mealings Open comprehensive and Housing (Jan 2020), Homelessness 14 Apr 2021 Strategy proactive Portfolio Holder, Public homelessness strategy All BCP consultation and and related action plan Members, Adult series of for BCP. Social Care, stakeholder Children’s Social workshop/ Care, CCG, events Jan to Police June 2020.
200 Homelessness Reduction Board and associated Partnership (included lived experience). Council Fleet To acknowledge the Yes Cabinet Front line Kate Langdown Open financial impact of the service units, Replacement 14 Apr 2021 varied approach to fleet finance and legal Programme & replacement by legacy services. Sustainable Council Fleet Councils on the BCP Management Sustainable Fleet 27 Apr 2021 Strategy Strategy.
Approve a long term financing strategy to support a rationalised BCP Sustainable Fleet Strategy. What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Corporate To approve the Yes Cabinet Chris Shephard Corporate Asset Asset 14 Apr 2021 Management Management Plan Plan
Highway Asset Cabinet approves No Cabinet All Wards Gary Powell Open
201 adoption of the draft Management 14 Apr 2021 Policy and Highway Asset Strategy Management Policy and Strategy
Regulatory To provide a single No Cabinet All Wards legal Louise Jones Open Regulatory Services Services and 14 Apr 2021 Licensing and Licensing Enforcement Enforcement Policy Policy across BCP consolidating the three legacy authority enforcement policies
What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Domestic To consider the No Overview and All Wards Andrew Williams Open Domestic Abuse Abuse Strategy Scrutiny Board and Delivery Strategy and 17 May 2021 associated Delivery Plan Plans Cabinet 26 May 2021
Capital annual report from No Cabinet All Wards Neil Goddard Open
202 children's services Programme 26 May 2021
Fly-tipping and To seek approval to No Cabinet All Wards Peter Haikin Open commission a private Fly-posting 26 May 2021 Enforcement service provider for a Pilot 12 months pilot project, to conduct enforcement services for fly-tipping and fly-posting at zero net cost to the Council.
What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
BCP Housing To share with members No Cabinet All Wards All other BCP Public Lorraine Mealings, Open the new BCP Housing Services as well consultation (12 Strategy 2021- 23 Jun 2021 Kerry-Marie Ruff 2026 Strategy which will as many weeks) with detail the current and external options paper anticipated future stakeholders along with a housing issues, setting number of out the priorities and stakeholder delivery options to engagement address local needs sessions
203 Recommendati To review and consider Yes Cabinet All Wards Public Public Sophie Ricketts Open the results of the 12 consultation ons following 23 Jun 2021 the public week public underway selective and consultation and 13/1/206/4/20 additional present licensing recommendations to consultation cabinet for the proposals whether to implement additional and/or selective licensing Tourism and To agree the strategy Yes Cabinet All Wards Portfolio Holder Amanda Barrie, Open for BCP for Tourism, Destination 23 Jun 2021 Chris Saunders Strategy Leisure and Communities What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Flag Flying Consolidation of flag Yes Cabinet All Wards Appropriate Internal Karen Tompkins Open flying policies for Service Areas consultation as Policy 23 Jun 2021 preceding authorities within the appropriate and consideration of Council other associated issues.
204
Crime & To agree & adopt a No Cabinet All Wards Community Andrew Williams Open BCP Crime & Disorder Safety Disorder 28 Jul 2021 Reduction Reduction Strategy Partnership Strategy
Community and Adoption of compact No Cabinet All Wards Voluntary sector Summer 2020 Cat McMilan Open dealing the Council’s organisations Voluntary 28 Jul 2021 Sector Strategy approach to working and internal with the voluntary departments. sector (harmonisation) What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Community Approval of strategy No Cabinet The community Public Cat McMilan Open and internal consultation Jan Engagement 28 Jul 2021 and departments. to April 2020. Consultation Internal Strategy consultation April-May 2020.
205 Library Strategy To produce a library No Cabinet Open strategy across all BCP Date to be libraries and the confirmed development of libraries as neighbourhood hubs. What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Dorset Flood & To seek approval to No Cabinet All Wards Cabinet Catherine Corbin, Open evolve from the existing consideration is Coastal Date to be Matt Hosey, Julian Dorset Coastal required by both Partnership confirmed McLaughlin Engineering BCP Council Partnership Agreement and Dorset (between BCP Council Council. and Dorset Council) to a Shared Service Agreement. This would
206 include working to a single budget for the resourcing and management of the service, including a longer term shift to BCP acting as host employer. It is also proposed for the Shared Service to expand to include surface water management and therefore operate as the Dorset Flood and Coastal Partnership. What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Russell Coates No Cabinet Sarah Newman, Open Arts Gallery Date to be Chris Saunders Museum confirmed Governance Report Beach Hut Harmonisation of No Cabinet Andrew Brown Open policy, pricing, team Policy Date to be location and booking confirmed system 207
Adoption of To consider a request No Cabinet Christchurch Leader of the Informal Alan Ottaway Open from Priory Mews Council (Cllr consultation to Ducking Stool Date to be Town Management Company Drew Mellor); inform the Walk, confirmed Christchurch for BCP Council to Portfolio Holder report adopt the land and (Cllr Mark structures forming the Anderston); Public Right of Way Ward known as Ducking Councillors (Cllr Stool Walk Peter Hall and Cllr Mike Cox); BCP Economic Yes Cabinet Development Date to be Strategy confirmed What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Western To advise Cabinet of No Cabinet All Wards Portfolio Holders A public Julian McLaughlin, Open the STB's intention to for Transport consultation is Gateway Sub- Date to be Ewan Wilson adopt its Strategic and active until 31 national confirmed Transport Body Transport Plan at its Infrastructure July 2020 (STB)- Strategic Board meeting in and Environment https://westerng Transport Plan December 2020 and Climate atewaystb.org.u subject to agreement of Change. k/ all its consituent members. This is also
208 subject to the outcome of an active consultation period which will close on 31st July 2020. Children's To present reviewed No Children's All Wards Rachel Gravett Open arrangements Safeguarding Services Arrangements Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Cabinet
Dates to be confirmed What is the What is the purpose Is this a Decision Wards Who are the What is the Officer writing the Is the report subject? of the issue? Key Maker and key consultation report likely to be Decision? Due Date stakeholders to process and considered in be consulted period private (i.e., it before the contains decision is confidential or made? exempt information)?
Bournemouth No Cabinet All Wards Open Learning Centre Date to be conversion to a confirmed Special School Campus - Capital budget approval Poole To update Cabinet and No Cabinet Poole Town relevant Chris Shephard Open Regeneration the public on projects stakeholders to 209 Date to be and activities in Poole the Poole Update confirmed Town Centre Regeneration Programme
Thistle Hotel, To seek authorisation No Cabinet Poole Town Rebecca Bray Open to restructure a lease to Poole Quay - Date to be enable a third party Lease confirmed restructure Hotel/Residential development to proceed 210