Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Councillors.

Apologies were received from Cllr V Slade and Cllr M Tarling.

To receive information on any changes in the membership of the Committee.

Note – When a member of a Committee is unable to attend a meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee, the relevant Political Group Leader (or their nominated representative) may, by notice to the Monitoring Officer (or their nominated representative) prior to the meeting, appoint a substitute member from within the same Political Group. The contact details on the front of this agenda should be used for notifications.

Notification was received that Cllr T Trent and Cllr J Clements were substituting for Cllr V Slade and Cllr M Tarling respectively.

Councillors are requested to declare any interests on items included in this agenda. Please refer to the workflow on the preceding page for guidance.

Declarations received will be reported at the meeting.

Agenda Item 9 - Governance surrounding the disposal of Council land and property: For transparency purposes Cllr M Andrews reported that he was employed by commercial property surveyors.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record for the Chair to sign.

The Chair confirmed that the suggestion to include an action tracker alongside the minutes had been noted.

Note: Cllr J Beesley asked to be recorded as abstaining from voting on 17 October and 5 September 2024 minutes.

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 22 November [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].

The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Wednesday 27 November [midday the working day before the meeting].

The deadline for the submission of a petition is Thursday 14 November 2024 [10 working days before the meeting].

Public Questions received from Mr Alex McKinstry in relation to Agenda item 6 – Statement of Accounts 2022/23

Question 1

Did Grant Thornton receive any extra payment for the feedback it provided relating to the 2022 budget (and in particular, the beach hut scheme that underpinned it)? If so, what was the amount paid? Can you also confirm whether GT's advice was presented in a report or paper of any description, and if so, what was the date of any such document?

Response:

Grant Thornton’s 2020/21 Audit Findings Report finalised on 2 March 2023 included a final fee for the audit. Within this it included additional fees for value for money work for the year totalling £20,000 which covered a whole raft of additional value for money work undertaken in the year based on a number of risks identified by the auditor. This additional work included work on the proposed beach hut scheme and discussions with DLUHC on BCP’s proposal, but also included significant work on numerous other areas to conclude their work. There was not an individual amount for the beach hut scheme work in isolation. In terms of Grant Thorntons advice, they cannot provide advice to the Council as this would compromise their independence. If they had concerns about any potential decision, they would raise it with officers, but it is ultimately a decision for the Council. The 2020/21 VFM report of the 28 September 2022 details their consideration of the potential beach hut scheme.

Question 2

Regarding the controversial 2023 budget amendment, which was never in fact put forward: what exactly was this proposal, and what were the elements that made it "innovative and high-risk"? We know the then-Leader had a specific scheme in mind because it is described, on p. 60 of tonight's reports pack, as "a proposed income strip of a Council-owned asset" that would have generated a capital receipt and revenue stream. Was any file note or memorandum made of the meeting between Peter Barber, Graham Farrant and Adam Richens on 13 January 2023 where this scheme was discussed; and were any concerns relayed to Lee Rowley, Minister of State at DLUHC, who rang Drew Mellor at 1.30 pm on 19 January 2023 (seemingly out of the blue) and wrote to him six days later cautioning against a "commercial scheme that carries risk"?

Initial response:

This question is not straight forward and will take longer than the relatively short period of time between the submission of the question and this meeting to prepare a response. The intention is to include a detailed response with the minutes of this meeting.

Full response:

As set out in the 2022/23 Value for Money report of the External Auditor the proposal which was not formally put forward was a possible income strip of a Council-owned asset. In an income strip, a Council typically sells a long leasehold interest in an asset while retaining ownership of the freehold. The Council receives a substantial upfront payment, normally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The draft statement of accounts for 2022/23 was published within the statutory deadline on the 31^st May 2023. At that time the audit of the statement was expected to be completed later in 2023. However, due to the complex set of factors contributing to audit delays across the sector, an audit of the 2022/23 statements has not been completed, other than work relating to the external auditor’s value for money opinion. To address the national backlog of local audits the Government is imposing (subject to secondary legislation) a backstop date of 13 December 2024 for publication of accounts for financial years up to and including 2022/23. The Committee is required to consider and approve the accounts before they are published.

Peter Barber, representing Grant Thornton, the Council’s External Auditor, presented a report, 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.

The Committee was required to consider and approve the draft statement of accounts for 2022/23 before they were published. Mr Barber summarised the key points detailed in his letter, dated 12 November 2024, regarding the conclusion of the audit for 2022/23. The letter included the reasons why it was not possible to complete the audit for 2022/23 by the statutory backstop date and the proposal to issue a disclaimer. It was noted that the Value for Money (VFM) work for 2022/23 previously reported to the Committee had been fully discharged and was recirculated at appendix 3.

In response to questions Mr Barber assured members that a full audit for 2023/24 had been undertaken and was on track to meet the February 2025 deadline. Regarding previous delays, he confirmed that Dorset Pension Fund was aware of the importance of issuing its letter of assurance to ensure the completion of the 2023/24 audit. It was aimed to get this letter before Christmas 2024. He clarified that the significant weaknesses listed in the draft audit report at appendix 2 had already been identified and reported to the Committee previously as part of the VFM work. In respect of the statement of accounts for 2022/23, the Assistant Chief Financial Officer wished to assure members that the Council’s usable reserves had not changed as a result of subsequent decisions taken by Cabinet and Council.

A concern was raised regarding the total estimated figure for the Transformation Investment Programme, as shown in the statement of accounts, and whether there were any tangible benefits from the public’s perception. The Chief Executive referred to the regular updates provided on the transformation programme. He advised that a completion report was due to be submitted to O&S and Cabinet in January 2025, which would include the levels of expenditure and savings over the programme’s lifespan.

The Committee was advised that the issues raised in the report related to the 2022/23 financial position and that the position for 2023/24 and the current year to date reflected the positive changes made, as reported at previous meetings. Members acknowledged the progress made in addressing the significant weaknesses identified in the report and it was recognised that the matters identified were known issues. For example, Members were well aware of the Dedicated Schools Grant. The forthcoming update on the transformation programme was noted and may be something for the committee to review in due course. There was now a need to look to the future. However, this did not mean that past issues, such as FuturePlaces, should be overlooked or that issues from the 2022/23 financial year should not be considered where there were lessons to be learnt, perhaps as part of wider look at decisions made at that time where there were costs involved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The report summarises the issues considered by the Constitution Review Working Group and sets out a series of recommendations arising from the Working Group for consideration by the Committee relating to the arrangements at Council for a separate budget meeting and the scheme of delegation for the planning committees.

In addition, the report seeks the appointment of an additional member of the committee to serve on the Constitution Review Working Group.

Any recommendations arising from the Committee shall be referred to full Council for adoption.

The Chair of the Constitution Review Working Group presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'B' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The report provided a summary of the issues considered by the Constitution Review Working Group and set out a series of recommendations arising from the Working Group for consideration by the Committee. The recommendations related to the arrangements at Council for a separate budget meeting and the scheme of delegation for the planning committees. It was noted that any recommendations arising from the Committee would be referred to full Council for adoption. In addition, the report sought the appointment of an additional member of the Committee to serve on the Constitution Review Working Group.

Issue 2 – Part 3A Responsibility for Functions – Planning Committee:

The Director of Planning and Transport provided an explanation for the changes proposed to the functions of the planning committees as set out in paragraphs 20 to 27 of the report. The changes had been incorporated into an updated version of Part 3A of the Constitution at appendix 2. Members discussed at length the proposed change to section 2.3.7 (a) of Part 3A in relation to one of the criteria for councillor call in. As written, Members felt that the criteria requiring an application to raise material planning issues ‘that affect their ward’ was too restrictive, as this could be read to mean the whole of the ward which would rarely apply. Members agreed that the reference to material planning issues was key and that the term ‘potentially contentious’ was not required. However, Members felt that call in should be permitted where only part of their ward, however small, was affected.

A move to amend the wording of section 2.3.7 (a) to read as follows was seconded and carried:

“in the opinion of the Councillor making the request, the application raises material planning issues that affect part or all of their ward or would affect the wider public interest that would warrant debate and consideration by a planning committee; and”

Voting: For – 6, Against – 0, Abstain – 1

Issue 1 – Part 2, Article 4 (The Full Council) – Budget Meeting:

The Chair of the Working Group referred to recommendations (a) and (b) in the report and outlined the reasons for the proposed new Budget Council as set out in paragraphs 9 to 12. She assured Members that the review of other matters around full council meetings was ongoing. Committee members spoke in support of introducing a dedicated council meeting to consider the budget items.

RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL that:

(a)  in relation to Issue 1 (Article 4 – The Full Council) the proposed amendments to Part 2, Article 4 (The Full Council), as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved;

(b)  that the Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 25 February 2025 be designated as the Annual Budget Council Meeting and that an additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

To receive a presentation on the transparency of officer decision making covering Constitution elements and the accountability to Councillors.

The Monitoring Officer gave a presentation on the transparency of officer decision making and accountability to councillors, a copy of which appears at Appendix ‘C’ to these minutes in the Minute Book.

The content of the presentation covered key areas including the Constitution, financial thresholds, the scheme of delegation?, types of officer decisions, other forms of officer decisions and decisions made by statutory officers (s5 and s114 reports)?. The Monitoring Officer took the opportunity to confirm that she was satisfied with the current wording of her responsibilities under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as set out in Article 11 of the Constitution with no changes proposed.

Committee members talked about the importance of ward member engagement and the need for this to be embedded. It was noted that ward members were invited to comment on draft reports through the modern gov system where the issue affected their ward. The Monitoring Officer agreed that this process be highlighted when the councillor induction programme was considered by the Standards Committee. She explained that officers were encouraged to be proactive in communicating with ward members outside of the formal report process, something members felt should be reinforced as part of the officer induction programme.

A concern was raised about the mechanisms available internally and externally for councillors to challenge officer decisions, in terms of there being a lack of sufficient recourse to raise issues in the public interest. The Monitoring Officer assured members that the decision-making process was heavily monitored and regulated. She outlined the mechanisms available internally, including provisions under the Constitution, the formal complaints process and the role of Internal Audit. Externally one could apply for judicial review, although it was commented that this was an unlikely and costly option. Governance concerns could also be raised with the External Auditor who had the power to undertake an independent investigation and require mandatory responses from the Council’s statutory officers and was comfortable in doing so. It was noted with support that the Portfolio Holder for Finance met regularly with the External Auditor on a one-to-one basis to raise issues and concerns.

The Monitoring Officer also responded to points raised by members as follows:

·       The definition of a ‘key’ decision – this would be added to the final version of the presentation slides.

·       The process followed by statutory officers in coming to an informed collective view on a case-by-case basis should Cabinet and officers not agree on the proposed category of decision. It was noted that this was not a s5 report.

·       The level of detail contained in the published officer decision record

·       The process followed by statutory officers when issuing a report to suspend decision making and the challenges of meeting the 21 day timescale.

The Chair thanked the Monitoring Officer for her presentation.

To receive a presentation to explain the governance in place when the Council seeks to dispose of land and property.

The Chief Financial Officer gave a presentation on governance arrangements for the disposal of council land and property, a copy of which appears at Appendix ‘D’ to these minutes in the Minute Book.

The content of the presentation covered key areas, including a step-by-step process map for asset disposal, the role of the Cross Party Strategic Asset Disposal Working Group (CPSADWG) and its agreed operating principles, the respective financial thresholds for Officer/Cabinet/Council decision making as set out in the Financial Regulations and the legal framework for asset disposal subject to Best Value Duty.

The Chief Financial Officer responded to questions from the Committee on issues raised in the presentation, including:

·       It was confirmed that ward members were consulted on asset disposals in their ward. This could be widened on a case-by-case basis, for example if an asset was located in an adjourning ward near the ward boundary.

·       The Committee was advised that there was a pipeline of assets disposals which was useful in the context of the timescale set out in Principle 1 regarding ‘disposal of assets where completion can be guaranteed by 31 March of the relevant financial year and to the required amount’

·       It was suggested that the Council may wish to consider leasing empty properties as a source of income. It was noted that any proposal needed to accord with the CPSADWG principles.

·       The Council continued to review the internal resources needed to deliver the required asset disposals. It was noted that issues affecting the delivery were often due to external factors outside the Council’s control.

The Chair thanked the Chief Financial Officer for his presentation.