Public Issues
To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is midday on Thursday 27 November 2025 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Tuesday 2 December 2025 [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Wednesday 19 November 2025 [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
The following public issues were received:
Question from Ian Redman.
The core requirement under Section 151 is to ensure that the Council’s finances are handled: prudently, affordably, sustainably and lawfully with proper risk management.
These duties apply whenever public money is at risk, including when a Council lends money to a third party, especially a council-owned company like FuturePlaces.
The £8m working capital loan was approved with no deliverable repayment plan in place (4.6.1–4.6.4).
How did the CFO judge this loan to be prudent, affordable and sustainable when FuturePlaces had no guaranteed means to repay it?
Response:
The report to Cabinet and Council (22 June 2022 and 12 July 2022) set out the financial and legal implications, in paragraphs 40 to 57. In that report paragraph 48 stated:
The business plan from FuturePlaces as attached indicates that the £8m working capital loan facility can be repaid to the council. The current cashflow indicates the debt will peak as £5.3m in quarter 1 2023/24 reducing to nil by the end of 2026/27financial year.
The report also set out the financial risks and stated there may be future need for provisions to be made for potential losses, although no such provision was being made at that point.
Question 1 from Alex McKinstry.
5.10 of tonight's report considers the £100,000 Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) - a type of Covid support grant - obtained by FuturePlaces to fund a "city identity study". A few details are missing however. Can you confirm the date of the application for this ARG (paragraphs 5.10.2 - 5.10.4); the identity of whoever it was who signed the application form (ibid.); and the identity of the FuturePlaces representative who signed the grant acceptance letter of 8 December 2021 (paragraph 5.10.6)? I'll be content with the job title if it wasn't a senior officer, or a councillor, signing these documents.
Response:
The date of the application was 5 November 2021.
The identify of the applicant was the FuturePlaces Corporate Engagement Director.
The identity of the FuturePlaces representative who signed the grant acceptance letter was the Corporate Engagement Director, this was signed on the 8 December 2021.
Please note the terms Strategic Engagement Director and Corporate Engagement Director seem to have been used inter-changeably to describe the same post.
Question 2 from Alex McKinstry.
Once awarded, the £100,000 ARG was in fact paid to a separate company - 1HQ Ltd - who actually carried out the city identity study. However, paragraphs 5.10.11 and 5.10.13 suggest that overspending and VAT pushed the overall cost of this project up to £128,580, and that the excess £28,580 was covered by way of "match funding". Where did this match funding derive from; and if it was in fact FuturePlaces who provided the match funding, where did they get the money from?
Response:
Although £28,580 was described as match funding, the VAT element of this sum was in fact recoverable. The actual net (of VAT) spend was £107,150. The net cost of £7,150 ... view the full minutes text for item 73
Public Issues
To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is midday on Friday 31 October 2025 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Wednesday 5 November 2025 [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Thursday 23 October 2025 [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
The following public issues were received in relation to the draft - Internal Audit - BCP FuturePlaces (FPL) Investigation Report (Scope items 1 to 8):
Public Questions from Mr Ian Redman:
Question 1.
BEIS said the council had discretion on how to award Additional Restrictions Grants but that these funds were to be used "to support businesses severely impacted by coronavirus restrictions and the rise of the omicron variant" - which Future Places, as a new company, was definitely not! Future Places were urged to apply for a £100,000 ARG grant by "the BCP City Panel". Who were members of the "city panel" and which council officers approved the grant?
Response:
The criteria for latter elements of the ARG grant (schemes 3 and 4) could fit wider criteria as set out in government guidance
Point 1 on page 4: This guidance is intended to support Local Authorities in administering the Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) to provide direct business grants and wider business support.
Point 21 on page 5: With the exception of the third top-up payment, Local Authorities can use ARG funding for business support activities. This may primarily take the form of discretionary grants, but Local Authorities could also use this funding for wider business support activities.
And Point 34 on Page 8: Previous guidance for the Additional Restrictions Grant indicated that businesses must have been trading before relevant restrictions were introduced in order to be eligible. This is no longer the case. All businesses that are trading and meet other eligibility criteria may apply to receive funding under this scheme. There is no starting date from which businesses must have been trading in order to qualify for grant funding.
This was all set out in the Council’s published schemes, which were all approved by Corporate Management Board.
Entities who were involved in the City Panel are shown in the snip at 5.10.2 of the report. The BCP Council Leader and Deputy Leader were also invited.
Officers who approved the grant on the Council’s award panel were the Director of Development and Director of Destination and Culture, supported by two officers from Economic Development who were advisors to the panel.
Question 2.
Once awarded to Future Places, the £100,000 grant was transferred to a separate company, 1HQ Limited, so that it could carry out a "city identity study". The resulting report by 1HQ Limited is available online, and consists of 35 pages, 15 of which are photographs of Bournemouth or full-sized page numbers. The observations in the report aren't particularly striking either. Whose job was it, at Future Places or BCP Council, to ensure quality control and value for money, especially in this scenario, where £100,000's worth of work had supposedly been undertaken?
Response:
As with all the ARG grants, the responsibility for delivering the outcomes and outputs stipulated in application forms was with the applicant, in this case, Future Places. Future Places were also required to provide a monitoring report detailing how the outcomes ... view the full minutes text for item 59