09/07/2026
Following Bournemouth Town Council's second Full Council meeting, which lasted over three hours, I wanted to share some of the key decisions and reflections.
At the start of the meeting, I challenged Cllr Fear on why councillors don't receive joint briefings from the Town Clerk. If we're all one Town Council and serious about working together, every councillor should receive the same information at the same time. It would be more transparent, make better use of the Clerk's time and ensure everyone is working from the same information. My request was rejected.
Are separate meetings illegal? No.
But is it the right approach for a brand-new council that says collaboration and transparency are priorities? I don't believe so. It risks creating division from the outset when residents rightly expect their councillors to work together.
As a new council , we adopted policies such as staff expenses and biodiversity. Cllr Ben O'Keeffe secured an amendment to strengthen the Biodiversity Policy. We also heard from a member of the public for Friends of the Earth, whose proposed amendments were kicked down the road for further consideration at another date.
Committee appointments were also agreed. Reform UK appointed its councillors to all committee chair positions and almost every vice-chair role, with one Conservative councillor appointed as Vice-Chair of Planning, Licensing and Consultation.
As the second largest political group, the Green Group secured representation on all three committees:
• Cllr Ben O'Keeffe – Communities and Amenities
• Cllr Simon Bull – Audit, Finance and Staffing
• Cllr Sara Armstrong – Planning, Licensing and Consultation
However, no non Reform UK councillors were appointed to outside bodies or champion roles. I was nominated on behalf of my group to represent the council on the Coastal BID but this was not supported by Reform UK group.
There were some positive decisions. The council gave a clear and unanimous "no" to councillor allowances, which we fully supported.
However, I was disappointed that my proposal for a clear policy governing how Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding should be allocated to be brought to Full Council was voted down. My proposal aimed to introduce greater transparency and sought to ensure money raised from development is invested in the communities where it is generated.
Our group also supported creating a Grants and External Funding Officer in principle. This wasn't about increasing council spending or creating unnecessary bureaucracy. The purpose was to bring new external funding into Bournemouth for projects such as skate parks, green spaces, community facilities and other improvements that BCP Council or smaller organisations cannot always access. Successfully securing grants could reduce pressure on residents through the precept over time. The proposal was rejected, with one memorable suggestion being that AI and a volunteer could undertake this specialist role instead.
One decision particularly concerned me. The council approved up to £4,000 towards an event that was happening 48 hours later, before agreeing a grants policy, funding criteria, a formal assessment process or even finalising the council's budget. The payment was made subject to evidence of expenditure being provided after the event and without due diligence.
Was it illegal? No.
Does allocating public money before establishing a clear grant-making framework give residents confidence that every organisation will be treated fairly and consistently? I don't believe it does. I spoke against the proposal on this basis.
Interestingly, a later proposal to fund Bournemouth in Bloom was deferred because members accepted there was no grants policy, no agreed criteria and no established process for awarding grants. That only reinforced my concern that clear governance should come before funding decisions, not afterwards.
The Town Clerk also highlighted the risks of expecting one employee to oversee governance, committee administration, operational responsibilities, allotment inspections and the administration of a multi-million-pound council budget. Despite those concerns, requests for additional staffing support and office accommodation were not approved.
The council also passed a motion opposing the incinerator. While I understand the strength of local feeling, the Planning Inspectorate appeal had already concluded, meaning no further evidence could be submitted. In practical terms, the motion was performative.
Cllr Bull raised important points about safeguarding and inclusion in response the the Mayor's motion to establish a Mayor's Cadet Force.
There were positives to take away, including an improvement to the Biodiversity Policy and establishing the committee structure, but my biggest reflection is that there was a disconnect between the language used throughout the meeting and some of the decisions made.
If we're going to talk about transparency, good governance, robust decision-making and doing things the right way, those principles must be applied consistently.
If we are to have a town council, residents deserve one that works together, has clear policies in place before allocating public money, actively seeks opportunities to bring investment into our town, has a clear plan and a finalised budget. It currently has none of this. It is still very new.
That's exactly what I'll continue to champion alongside my Green Group colleagues.
