Issue - meetings

This draft investigation report - BCP FuturePlaces Ltd (FPL) covers scope areas 1 to 8 (all scope areas).

This A&G Committee meeting will be the third meeting on this matter. The Committee has previously reviewed:

·       an initial part A which covered scope areas 1 to 4 at a meeting on 24 September 2025. The meeting only managed to review scope areas 1-3.

·       Part 4 to 5.5 inclusive on 6 November.

This A&G meeting will attempt to cover parts 5.6 to 8 inclusive

There may be a need for a least one further meeting to consider further matters.

At the conclusion of this investigation there may still be gaps in understanding, and the Committee may or may not decide that further investigation through other means is required.

NOTE:

In relation to the confidential Appendix (Section F of the report), should the Committee wish to discuss the content, it is asked to consider the following resolution: -

‘That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs such interest in disclosing the information.’

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Audit and Management Assurance (HAMA), a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

This was the third meeting to consider the draft Internal Audit investigation report on BCP FuturePlaces Ltd (FPL). The Committee had previously reviewed an initial part A report which covered scope areas 1 to 4 at a meeting on 24 September 2025. At its second meeting on 6 November 2025 the Committee had considered a report covering all areas (scope areas 1 to 8). The Chair explained that this meeting would pick up where it left off in November at the end of Scope Area 5.5, continuing to make comments and identify areas where clarification was needed and/or where further consideration may be required.

Scope 5. Items requiring specific assurance (continued)

5.7 Did the Board provide adequate oversight of the company and its activities, at all stages.

·       A Member questioned why the FPL Board agenda shown at 5.7.3 contained mostly verbal reports including the risk register. The HAMA explained that a typical agenda included more written reports than the example given with the risk register usually presented on screen.

5.8 Establish whether any steering groups or advisory groups, to BCP FuturePlaces Ltd, existed.

·       Members commented that the FPL’s involvement with such groups was to be expected. It was noted that the list provided in the report was not meant to be exhaustive.

·       A Member questioned whether FPL had undertaken wider community engagement. The HAMA referred to FPL’s engagement with the local community on the Holes Bay scheme at 5.8.5 and advised that this was not an isolated example. The use of ‘charettes’ was also noted.

5.9 Establish the relationships that BCP FuturePlaces Ltd had with other bodies/initiatives, companies and council companies/delivery vehicles.

·       The HAMA clarified that Bournemouth Development Company (BDC) did not pay FPL for its work on the Site 2 - BIC/Winter Gardens/ARC scheme. This work had been included in the FPL business plans approved by Cabinet. The Council had paid FPL for the work in progress as part of the closure settlement.

5.10 Any other specific items that may be revealed as a result of the investigation

Additional Restriction Grant (ARG) 4 (Covid)

·       While Members were able to disagree (and did) with FPL’s application for the ARG and how the grant was used, the focus for the purpose of this investigation was around the process followed in awarding the grant.

·       Members questioned the status of the BCP City Panel but were reminded that the decision maker in this case had been the Council.

·       The HAMA advised that the Council had followed Government guidance and its own local scheme when awarding these grants.

·       Members commented on similar examples in other councils where the use of ARGs had been questionable.

·       It was noted that ARGs had been part of the then Government’s attempt to kickstart the economy in what had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74

This draft investigation report - BCP FuturePlaces Ltd (FPL) covers scope areas 1 to 8 (all scope areas).

This A&G Committee meeting will be the second meeting on this matter. The Committee has previously reviewed an initial part A which covered scope areas 1 to 4 at a meeting on 24 September 2025. The meeting only managed to review scope areas 1-3.

To allow the Committee sufficient time to digest and review the findings to determine next steps there may be a need for a least one further meeting.

At the conclusion of this investigation there may still be gaps in understanding, and the Committee may or may not decide that further investigation through other means is required.

NOTE:

In relation to the confidential Appendix (Section F of the report), should the Committee wish to discuss the content, it is asked to consider the following resolution: -

‘That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs such interest in disclosing the information.’

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Audit and Management Assurance (HAMA), a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

This was the second committee meeting to consider the draft Internal Audit investigation report on BCP FuturePlaces Ltd (FPL). This report covered scope areas 1 to 8 (all scope areas). The Committee had previously reviewed an initial part A which covered scope areas 1 to 4 at a meeting on 24 September 2025. It was noted that there may be a need for a least one further meeting to allow the Committee sufficient time to digest and review the findings to determine next steps. At the conclusion of the investigation there may still be gaps in understanding, and the Committee may or may not decide that further investigation through other means was required.

The Chair explained that the Committee would pick up where it left off on 24 September at the end of Scope Area 3, continuing to make comments and identify areas where clarification was needed and/or where further consideration may be required. She also suggested that members send any further questions to her and the HAMA, she would then compile these into a list to aid discussion at the next meeting.

The Chair and members thanked the HAMA for the amount of work taken to produce a report of such depth and breadth.

Scope 4. Detailed expenditure incurred by BCP FuturePlaces Ltd

4.1 Provide details of where the money went / what expenditure did BCP FuturePlaces Ltd incur. (a schedule).

• The HAMA’s recommendation at 4.1.2 regarding Council Teckal companies filing Profit and Loss (P&L) accounts was noted

4.1.6 Drilldown A – Consultancy Fees (Outsourced - cost of sales) £3,146,410:

• Members commented that ‘where the money went’ was now very clear, with consultancy fees accounting for over 40% of FPL total expenditure.
• A member suggested that the list of consultants seemed very long and commercial in nature. It was noted that this may be what one would expect in the private sector. It may be useful to seek examples of comparative fees for regeneration work.
• A member commented that the wide range of consultants could indicate a scattergun approach and a lack of focus. Also it seemed that some consultants appeared to provide similar expertise to FPL.
• Members queried tendering procedures and whether value for money (VFM) was achieved. Members were referred to Section 4.2 of the report which set out the arrangement for procuring suppliers.
• The HAMA was unable to locate any working paper to account for the manual adjustment of £8,467, despite best endeavours.
• The potential link between some consultants and the Stewardship Initiative was flagged – see also 5.3 below.

Areas for consideration:

• Whether to undertake a benchmarking exercise on consultancy fees for regeneration work
• Whether more information is required on the approach taken to appointing consultants and whether VFM was provided

4.1.7 Drilldown B  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60