BOROUGH OF POOLE – COUNCIL – 23 SEPTEMBER 2014

BOROUGH OF POOLE

COUNCIL

23 SEPTEMBER 2014

The Meeting commenced at 7:00pm and concluded at 10:19pm.

Present:

Councillor Adams (Mayor)

Councillor Eades (Deputy Mayor)

Councillor Jo Clements (Sheriff)

Councillors Ms Atkinson, Brooke, Brown, Burden, Mrs Butt, Chandler, Clements, Mrs Cox, Mrs Dion, Mrs Evans, Goodall, Godfrey, Mrs Haines, Mrs Hodges, Howell, Le Poidevin, Maiden, Matthews, Meachin, Mrs Moore, Parker, Mrs Parkinson, Pawlowski, Potter, Mrs Pratt, Rampton, Mrs Rampton, Mrs Slade, Sorton, Mrs Stribley, Trent, Mrs Walton, White, Wilkins, Miss Wilson, Wilson and Woodcock

Members of the Standards Committee in attendance: Nil

Members of the public present: Approximately 14

C65.14PRAYERS

Prayers were said.

C66.14APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss Carpenter and Mrs Wilson.

C67.14MINUTES

It was Moved, Seconded and

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Council, held on 22 July 2014, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, confirmed and signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

C68.14DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST

Councillor Mrs Slade declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6, “Presentation of Petitions from the Public in Relation to Proposals Requesting the Council to Re-open and Refurbish the Toilets in Jubilee Road”, and Agenda Item 7, “Response of Petition Requesting the Council to Open the Public Toilets in Jubilee Road as a Matter of Urgency”, as she was a member of the Community Toilet Scheme in Broadstone and as part of the Scheme, received a small reduction in Business Rates.

C69.14MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS

The Mayor drew Council’s attention to his Communications tabled that evening, detailing a number of engagements he had attended on behalf of the Council since the last Meeting of the Council.

C70.14PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

(i)From Members of the Public

(a)Petition from members of the public requesting the Council reconsider the refurbishment and reopening of the Jubilee Road Toilets

The Mayor invited Mr Richard Wilson to present the Petition on behalf of residents in the following terms:

Mr Wilson addressed the Council in the following terms:

“Mr Mayor, Councillors, Officers, members of the Public, I am presenting this Petition on behalf of over 1,000 Poole residents. There were, in fact over 1,400 residents of the Borough who signed but other customers of Ashley Road businesses, all of whom have been affected by the closure of the public toilets in Jubilee Road, brought that number to around 2,000.

We are asking the Council to think again as its Community Toilet Scheme is NOT WORKING. A number of people have told us that they feel uncomfortable entering premises just to use their toilet facilities, in particular cafes, feeling that they ought to purchase something before using their facilities.

This Community Toilet Scheme is not adequate! It has resulted in distress to many people including families with young children, disabled people and the elderly, and also some very unpleasant behaviour.

I have seen the report produced in response to this petition. As Chairman of the Traders Association referred to in paragraph 7.2, I need to inform you that, subsequent to our meeting on February 11th 2014, we contacted Council Officers to express concerns. We warned them that we had canvassed most of the traders who said were interested in the scheme and found that none of them wanted to participate, this includes both Madeira Road and Mansfield Road surgeries.

The Council claims that Poole is ‘open for business’ yet a number of customers of Ashley Road traders have ceased using the area and chosen to shop elsewhere since the closure of the Jubilee Road toilets.

The Community Toilet Scheme does not work in Ashley Road, please rethink this scheme and refurbish and reopen the public toilets in Jubilee Road before there is a further loss of custom to the town. Times are difficult for retail businesses and this situation is making them worse!

Thank you.”

The Mayor thanked Mr Wilson for his Presentation and invited him to stay to listen to the debate on the Report in response to the Petition and the Motion also requesting the Council to consider reopening the toilets on Jubilee Road.

(ii)From Members

(a)Alexandra Road Traffic Calming

Councillor Parker presented a petition on behalf of residents of Alexandra Road, members of the “Enough is Enough” campaign, calling for the Council to investigate the use of traffic calming in Alexandra Road.

It was Moved, Seconded and

RESOLVED that the Petition be referred to the Transportation Advisory Group for consideration.

(b)Petition requesting the Council to open the Toilets in Jubilee Road

Councillor Le Poidevin handed in a Supplementary additional 85 signatories to the Public Petition on the same topic which was to be debated at Council this evening.

C71.14RESPONSE TO THE PETITION REQUESTING THE COUNCIL TO OPEN THE TOILETS IN JUBILEE ROAD: REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSUMER PROTECTION SERVICES

The Report prepared by the Head of Environment and Consumer Protection Services, in response to the petition of over 1,000 signatures, circulated to all Councillors for consideration, was not debated as it was not formally proposed and seconded.

The Mayor had proposed, and Council agreed, that the Motion at Agenda Item 12 (ii) and the Petition from members of the public requesting the Council to open the toilets in Jubilee Road be considered together:

A Motion had been received in the following terms:

Proposal to Refurbish and Reopen the Public Toilets in Jubilee Road

“This Council notes that the Community Toilet Scheme, approved on 25 February 2014, for the Ashley Road area has proved to be not fit for purpose and resolve to refurbish and reopen the public toilets in Jubilee Road”.

Signed: Councillors Brian Clements, Marion Le Poidevin, Charles Meachin and Phil Eades.

The Motion was Proposed, Seconded and Council voted in favour of debating it this evening.

A number of Members were in favour of the Motion for the following reasons:

When some Councillors had voted in favour (at the Meeting of 24 February 2014) to close the Jubilee Road toilets, six businesses had expressed an interest in the Community Toilet Scheme but this interest from the six businesses had never materialised, there being no take-up from all six interested parties. The Scheme went ahead on 1 April 2014. No more businesses were part of the Scheme and it was not working in Ashley Road. It was suggested that this decision must be reversed.

  • As a previous Leader of the Council, a Member had acknowledged that a wrong decision had been made and reversed it. The Councillor referred to an article published in the Daily Echo at that time.
  • Ashley Road was the busiest shopping street, there were numerous reports about the lack of toilets where the public were using the street as a toilet facility. He urged the Council to reconsider its decision and reinstate the Jubilee Road toilets.

An Amendment was Moved and Seconded in the following terms:

“To investigate the reopening of the Jubilee Road toilets for a period of up to one year to explore additional businesses who could provide additional toilet facilities and review the status after that time”.

A number of Members spoke against the Amendment, stating:

  • The problem was now, not next year.
  • The Council had voted to close the toilets, if they were reopened no-one the physical state of repair was unknown.
  • There were twice as many toilets in Ashley Road now than there were two years ago. There was a better provision and offer of facilities for the disabled at “Sea View”.
  • A Member had received numerous emails from members of the publicin her Ward concerning the withdrawal of bus subsidy and she explained if the Council reopened the toilets, where would it find the funding? The amount the Council was having to save was huge and it was likely to increase. The Officers had been asked to come up with some solutions to address the financial deficit and she felt that they were being “shot in the back” because residents complained. She urged Members to think of every part of the Borough.
  • A Member expressed grave concern about the Amendment, explaining that “Waitrose” had bright, well maintained toilets. The Jubilee Road facility was “filthy and disgusting” and she had received a number of complaints about anti-social behaviour. She felt that the Council should explore with the Community how it could take over and run the facility, which would be true localism in action, stating that the Council could not afford to reopen the toilets.

A Member Moved an Addendum to the Amendment to the Motion which was seconded in the following terms:

“That, in order to address the issues of the most vulnerable, the disabled facilities part of the Jubilee Road toilets be reopened immediately”.

The Proposer of the Amendment to the Motion accepted the Amendment as an Addendum to the original Amendment.

There was a debate as to whether an Amendment could be amended. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services gave Constitutional advice that the way the Council was proceeding was quite proper and the debate continued.

A number of Members continued speaking against the Amendment, explaining that:

  • Councillors were not going against the wishes of the Officers, they had utmost respect for the Officers but the decision the Council made in February was a mistake which the Amendment was seeking to put right.
  • A Member queried the exact state of the disabled toilets in Ashley Road? She had not received any complaints against the closure of the toilets. She respected the Petitioners but felt that some people had signed the Petition without the knowledge of all the facts.
  • This was not a political argument, if the disabled toilets were open this did not address all needs. Small businesses refused entry and use of their toilets as some were in stock rooms and there was a health and safety hazard preventing some from participating in the Community Toilet Scheme. She felt that the £650,000 which had been allocated to Poole’s Centre for the Arts, The Lighthouse. These funds could have been used for essential purposes, such as toilet provision.
  • A Member stated that the information Councillors had been given was not accurate. There was no intention to mislead by the Officers, but it was just that the Community Toilet Scheme in Jubilee Road did not work as well as that in Broadstone. She queried why the toilets were not able to be used by the public in Branksome Library? She stated she received £144 per quarter reduction in Business Rates for being part of this Scheme, it was not a financial incentive but she believed in the principle of the Community Toilet Scheme.
  • A Member suggested that the Community had to share the responsibility for the provision of toilets.
  • A Member supported the Amendment in principle as it was vital that toilet provision was available for those with disabilities but the Report to Council in February stated that three premises were part of the Scheme with another three soon to come on board and that six would be in the Scheme before it was progressed. The decision had been made by someone to go ahead with only three. If Members had been aware that there were only three businesses on board for the Scheme a different decision would have been made.
  • A Member queried whether the decision taken was flawed or had not been properly implemented?
  • A Member commented that the money should be found to reopen the toilets.
  • A Member commented that the Sea View toilets and those at Ted Webster were too far away for sensible use for inclusion in a Community Scheme in Ashley Road.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the Council decision made in February concerning the closure of Jubilee Road Toilets was not flawed.

Members then voted on the Motion as amended, including the addendum.

The Motion as amended was LOST.

Substantive Motion

Members then debated the Substantive Motion, stating as follows:

A number of Members supported the closure of the Jubilee Road toilets in February, which could have worked if it had been correctly implemented. This was not the case as Members were told that six had agreed to take part in the Scheme, one of the premises had closed, two never agreed and two were not in the Scheme so Members were curious as to why they were not informed. It was nine months since the Scheme had first been mooted; the Petition to reopen the toilet block, the main thrust of which was from the traders. Traders had had to turn people away from using their toilets as staff were concerned about the security and there were some insurance issues.

Members were not seeking to “shoot the Officers in the back and do a U-Turn”; no-one wanted to close the Service but they accepted the financial pressures. Some of the Community Toilet Schemes were working like those in Broadstone and Canford Heath, but some did not. It was important to listen to feedback from the residents and reopen the toilets and then move to the next phase of the Community Toilet Scheme. This would only cost £12,000 per annum in revenue expenditure to reopen this toilet block which it was stated would not bankrupt the Council.

Some Ward Members explained that, although the Community Toilet Scheme worked elsewhere, it may work in Ashley Road if six participants had been available as the Council had been promised but one had dropped out and two had never signed up. Some residents were reluctant to use the toilet in the Public House and also in the Café. Some Ward Councillors had been supportive of the Scheme, felt it had merit and then with only three traders taking part, it did not work. It was stated that there was no shame in reversing the Council’s decision.

A Member stated that theSubstantive Motion could not be supported as the Council had to take responsibility to achieve a balance budget and if Members were not supportive of the Officers when a difficult decision had been taken, then this would be an extremely difficult process. TheMedium Term Financial Plan did not contain funds to look after vulnerable people and for the provision of non statutory services as it was suggested that the Community should be assisted to help itself.

The requisite number of Members requested that voting on the Motion be recorded.

Voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Brooke, Brown, Clements, Jo Clements, Mrs Cox, Eades, Goodall, Godfrey, Mrs Hodges, Le Poidevin, Maiden, Matthews, Meachin, Mrs Moore, Mrs Slade, Trent, Miss Wilson, Wilson and Woodcock.

Against: Councillors Adams, Ms Atkinson, Burden, Mrs Butt, Chandler, Mrs Dion, Mrs Evans, Mrs Haines, Howell, Mrs Parkinson, Pawlowski, Potter, Mrs Pratt, Rampton, Mrs Rampton, Sorton, Mrs Stribley, Mrs Walton, White, Wilkins.

The Motion was LOST.

C72.14QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

No questions had been received.

C73.14ADJOURNMENT

The Council adjourned at 8:56pm and reconvened at 9:15pm.

C74.14CAPITAL BUDGET TRANSFERS (VIREMENTS): REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR REGENERATION AND INWARD INVESTMENT

Councillor White, the Portfolio Holder, presented his Report, the recommendations of which were Moved and Seconded. He was seeking Council approval to the reprofiling of the budget for Lilliput CE VC Infants School as any works required as a result of the current Options Study were unlikely to take place in 2014/15. Both Cabinet and the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee had approved this principle.

It was Moved, Seconded and

RESOLVED that the reprofiling of £700,000 for Lilliput CE VC Infants School from 2014/2015 to 2015/2-16 be approved.

C75.14CHILDREN’S SERVICES STRATEGIC PLAN: REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR FAMILIES AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Councillor Mrs Walton, the Portfolio Holder, introduced this Report, the recommendations of which were Moved and Seconded. Both the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet had recommended approval of the Plan to Council. The Plan was a partnership Plan of the Poole Children’s Trust and was a three year Plan to be reviewed annually. It sought to ensure that Children’s Services across the Council and partner agencies would continue to meet the needs of Children, Young People and Families in Poole. The overall priorities which were detailed at page 7 of the Plan were the same as those in the previous 2013 Children’s Strategic Plan and had been agreed as continuing to reflect the main multi agency priorities of all Children’s Services.