Take action · Email your councillors
Help us saveSOBO Beach.
The fight for SOBO Beach’s future isn’t over.
Fifteen substantive questions about the twenty-year decision remain unanswered. Email your local councillors in two minutes and ask them to make sure the independent review comes first.
people have emailed
their councillors
Now we need your help
Email your local councillors today.
Full Council has agreed to independent scrutiny, but it has not yet guaranteed that the review will be completed and its findings considered before a binding long-term agreement is signed.
Ask your councillors to support the appropriate Council resolution and lawful safeguards needed to make sure the independent review takes place before the Council becomes contractually committed.
We’ve prepared a letter you can personalise and send directly to your ward councillors.
- 1Enter your postcode.
- 2Write your message.
- 3Send your email.
people have emailed
their councillors
Where we are
You got us this far. It isn’t over yet.
More than 10,800 people stood together to protect SOBO Beach and the community that has grown around it.
Our petition helped secure an offer of another eleven months for SOBO Beach and a commitment from BCP Council to independently review the tender process.
But the decision to award a twenty-year lease to a new operator still stands.
Despite repeated requests, fifteen substantive questions about how that decision was reached remain unanswered.
We believe there are serious questions about public consultation, how the tender was designed and scored, the assessment of community value, and whether appropriate financial due diligence was undertaken.
We’re calling on BCP Council to
Our three asks
01
Pause the long-term agreement.
No binding twenty-year agreement until the independent review is finished.
02
Complete the independent review.
Examine the whole process, and consider the findings before the Council commits.
03
Restart the tender.
If the problems can’t be put right, a lawful, redesigned tender that values community.
A fair and transparent process matters to everyone: the existing operator, the preferred bidder, local businesses and the community.
If the review identifies material problems that cannot properly be remedied within the existing process, we want the Council to pursue a lawful, redesigned tender that gives full and appropriate consideration to the social, environmental, economic and community value of this important public space.
Why we’re asking
15 questions BCP Council must answer.
BCP Council has approved a proposed twenty-year agreement for the Southbourne beachfront site, despite substantial public concern about the procurement process. The Council has provided explanations and assurances, but important questions about consultation, evaluation, financial sustainability and democratic accountability remain unresolved.
We are calling for an appropriately independent review of the entire process, with its findings considered before any binding twenty-year agreement is signed.
Tap a question to read it in full.
Stage 1 · Before the tender
Were the community’s needs properly considered before the Council decided what to procure?
01Where was the community consultation?
What Southbourne-specific consultation took place with residents, beach users and other stakeholders before the tender requirements were established? What feedback was recorded, and what changes resulted?
02Why was further engagement not undertaken?
If no Southbourne-specific pre-tender consultation took place, what documented justification was given for that decision, particularly in light of BCP’s 2024 Seafront Strategy commitment to further engagement as individual projects came forward?
03Who decided the priorities for the site?
What evidence and approvals supported the chosen operating model, twenty-year lease term and evaluation priorities, including the decision to allocate 50% of the final assessment to financial considerations and only 2% expressly to community benefits?
Stage 2 · The tender and evaluation
Did the tender fairly assess what matters to Southbourne, and was it evaluated according to the Council’s own rules?
04How was SOBO’s existing community value recognised?
How were the existing operator’s demonstrated community activities, accessibility, year-round provision and local benefits reflected in the tender requirements and evaluation criteria? What equivalent commitments were required from competing bidders?
05Did the tender comply with BCP’s 10% social-value requirement?
BCP’s published April 2026 Financial Regulation 21(b) sets a conditional minimum of 10% of the overall score for relevant economic, social and environmental considerations.
The tender’s expressly identifiable criteria account for 7.5%. Which additional criteria, if any, were counted towards the requirement, and where is the documented assessment demonstrating compliance?
06How did the competing bids actually score?
What were the final financial, quality, environmental and community-benefit scores, and how did they influence the outcome?
Where detailed bidder information is commercially confidential, can the Council publish a meaningful non-confidential explanation and provide the full evaluation records to an appropriately authorised independent reviewer?
07Was the published evaluation methodology correctly applied?
What evidence demonstrates that the bids were assessed consistently against the published criteria, including appropriate moderation, verification of scoring calculations and independent checks of the final outcome?
Stage 3 · Financial due diligence and long-term safeguards
Was the preferred bidder’s financial capacity properly verified, and are its commitments sustainable and enforceable?
08What financial due diligence was completed?
What financial appraisals, risk assessments, approvals and sign-offs were undertaken before the award recommendation, including the checks required under BCP Financial Regulation 25?
Were any material concerns identified, and how were they addressed?
09How was the preferred bidder’s financial capacity verified?
What evidence was obtained to confirm the preferred bidder could finance its proposed investment and meet its long-term obligations?
Were any external funding commitments, guarantees or other financial securities independently verified?
10How were financial projections assessed against proven trading performance?
What evidence supported the preferred bidder’s projected income and operating assumptions, and how were these evaluated against the existing operator’s actual experience of running a year-round beachfront hospitality business?
11Was long-term financial resilience stress-tested?
What assessment was undertaken of potential downside scenarios, including winter trading conditions, adverse weather, operating costs, rent affordability, cash flow and the delivery of proposed capital investment?
12How will the promised benefits be enforced?
What binding contractual provisions will secure the preferred bidder’s financial commitments, investment programme, public amenities, community benefits and environmental promises?
How will performance be monitored, and what remedies will be available if commitments are not delivered?
Stage 4 · Democratic accountability
Were elected councillors properly involved, accurately advised and sufficiently informed before approving the twenty-year agreement?
13Why were councillors not involved in shaping the tender?
What opportunities were provided for ward councillors and elected representatives to contribute to the Southbourne procurement’s strategic objectives and requirements before the tender was issued?
If their involvement was restricted, who authorised that approach, on what legal or policy basis, and how was appropriate democratic oversight maintained?
14Were councillors given accurate and complete advice about their options?
What legal and procedural advice informed the Full Council decision of 13 October 2026, particularly regarding the Council’s ability to defer the decision, discontinue the procurement, provide temporary continuation arrangements or undertake independent scrutiny before contract execution?
How was the accuracy and completeness of that advice assured?
15Did councillors have sufficient information and time to make an informed decision?
When were councillors provided with the final wording of the amendment considered on 13 October, together with relevant supporting information and legal implications?
What steps were taken to ensure councillors had sufficient opportunity to understand the consequences of approving the twenty-year lease while independent scrutiny remained outstanding?
Why these answers matter
These fifteen questions examine the complete sequence of decisions that brought us to this point.
1
Before the tender
Were Southbourne’s needs and the public interest properly established?
2
During the tender
Were the requirements, weightings and evaluation fair and compliant with the Council’s own rules?
3
Before the award
Were the financial commitments, long-term risks and contractual safeguards properly verified?
4
At Full Council
Were elected representatives given the information and advice necessary to exercise meaningful democratic oversight?
We recognise that some commercial information may be confidential. That does not prevent the Council from providing appropriate public explanations or an authorised independent reviewer from examining the underlying evidence.
Our request is straightforward: independently review the process, consider the findings, and only then decide how to proceed with a binding twenty-year agreement.
The future of a valued public coastal asset deserves that level of accountability.
✉️ Email your councillorYou helped us get this far
Help us finish what we started.
SOBO Beach is more than a venue. It’s a community.
The offer of another eleven months was progress, but it doesn’t secure its long-term future.
We still have an opportunity to make sure this decision is properly reviewed before the next twenty years are committed.
Send your email. Share the campaign. Help us save SOBO Beach.