Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Councillors.

Apologies were received from Cllr S Bartlett, Cllr V Slade, Samantha Acton and Lindy Jansen-VanVuuren.

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 B Nanovo was substituting for Cllr V Slade for this meeting.

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.

There were none.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record.

Voting: Agreed with no dissent

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].

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.

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.