Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies have been received from Cllrs M Haines and P Miles.

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. 

Cllr B Dove substituted for Cllr M Haines.

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.

Cllr M Iyengar declared a local interest in agenda item 8, Scrutiny of Environment Related Cabinet Reports – Managing Unauthorised Encampments: Policies and Procedures, as he was previously a member of the working Group as outlined in the report. He would comment on the item as a member of the working group but would not take part in the discussion or vote on any motions.

Cllr T Trent declared a local interest in agenda item 8, Scrutiny of Environment Related Cabinet Reports – Managing Unauthorised Encampments: Policies and Procedures, as he was a member of the working Group as outlined in the report. He would comment on the item as a member of the working group but would not take part in the discussion or vote on any motions.

Cllr T Trent declared a personal interest for the purpose of transparency in agenda item 6, Scrutiny of Transport and Infrastructure related Cabinet Reports – Highway Maintenance Funding 2020/21 report, that he lived on a Road which was part of the programme a few weeks ago.

To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution, which 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 a public question is 4 clear working days before the meeting.

The deadline for the submission of a public statement is midday the working day before the meeting.

The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.

There were no public questions, statements or petitions.

To consider and amend the Board’s Forward Plan as appropriate and to consider the published Cabinet Forward Plan.

The Board noted the current forward plan and confirmed that it was happy to delegate planning of the future meetings to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in consultation with officers and the Board.

The Chairman advised that the order of the agenda would be varied slightly to take the second report in item 8 prior to the first report.

To consider issues within the Transport and Infrastructure Portfolio area including the following scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 30 September:

·       Highway Maintenance Funding 2020/21 report

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Andy Hadley, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure

The Cabinet report is attached for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

Highway Maintenance Funding - The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘C’ to the Cabinet minutes of 30 September 2020 in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Board member asked what paragraph 22 of the report meant in reference to the comment on an increase in maintenance block allocations in future years. The Portfolio Holder advised that we were coming to the end of the three-year period of the pothole fund and the Local Transport Plan and we did not know what the allocations would be for next year. The Council would need to bid into the Challenge Fund – and would find out in December what the allocation would be.

·     In response to a question regarding road maintenance in Christchurch it was noted that historically compared to Bournemouth and Poole it was underfunded. It was noted that the funding in Christchurch was approximately a quarter of that per kilometre compare to the rest of the area. The inspection regime was more frequent for more urban frequently used roads, particularly on bus routes and there were less of these types of roads in Christchurch.

·     A Board member asked about the various repair dates which had fallen behind. The Portfolio Holder advised that this was partly due to the impact of Covid on the supply chain but also due to staff not being available as they had to shield and it was recognised that there was some catching up to do on this.

·     A Board member asked about the uses of the Pothole fund and whether there was a mechanism for Councillors to get more involved in improving roads. It was noted that funding was limited so it was not possible to undertake any major changes under this fund. However, sometimes opportunities arose to carry out repairs in line with transforming cities or other major works and in these cases the team would do its best to manage how and when repairs were completed.

·     A Councillor commented that approximately three years ago some local roads were given a treatment which did not work and have now been resurfaced. In light of this, it was suggested that the O&S Board could look at whether anything had been done to evaluate the different measures of resurfacing. The Portfolio Holder advised that in some cases a road inspector will fill in as a temporary measure for safety issues but in the case referred to there was an issue with a contractor at the time. The Portfolio Holder suggested member seminar on the issue may be useful. The Councillor stated that he was concerned that this was an issue which needed looking into.

·     A Councillor commented that the highways budget included pavements as well as roads but that he couldn’t see pavement improvements included in the report.  The Portfolio Holder advised that pavements were inspected  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

To consider issues within the Regeneration Portfolio area including the following reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 30 September:

·       Flood Defences - Poole Bridge to Hunger Hill

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture and Councillor Felicity Rice, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change

The Cabinet report is attached for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

Flood Defences - Poole Bridge to Hunger Hill - The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘E’ to the Cabinet minutes of 30 September 2020 in the Minute Book.  The Portfolio holder explained that this report was mostly related to seafront services so bared a greater relation to her Cabinet Portfolio rather than the Regeneration portfolio. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Board member asked, in relation to paragraph 11, what the reason was for alternative options and alternative funding mechanisms. The Portfolio Holder advised that in the past there had been many attempts to achieve delivery of flood defences using various different schemes using the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This required a number of landowners to contribute in a combined approach or it would not work. The change in the amount of funding available from central government due to the recognition of the wellbeing aspect of flooding meant that the partnership contribution was not required. CIL contributions had previously been set at zero to encourage developers to install the flood defences. However, this would now be increase so that funding would still come from developers, but it would just be used in different ways.

In response to a question regarding the funding arrangements and whether this would be through the Environment Agency or whether it was a business case for the Council to commit the money. The Portfolio Holder advised that the Council would not need to pay towards the scheme but would need to commit to the maintenance of the scheme once in place and also for changes which would be needed for the scheme in 2075 and 2105. Full funding would be received from the EA once the bid is submitted. is on steering group for the project will go straight to Cabinet. The Cabinet report was ensuring certainty to Large Project Review Group that all of the funding required would be available.

To consider issues within the Environment and Climate Change Portfolio area including the following reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 30 September:

·       Managing Unauthorised Encampments: Policies and Procedures  

·       Christchurch Bay and Harbour FCERM (Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Managemnet) Strategy

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Felicity Rice, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change.

The Cabinet report is attached for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

Christchurch Bay and Harbour FCERM (Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy) - The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘D’ to the Cabinet minutes of 30 September 2020 in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Board member asked about the how the strategy worked with the other plans in place to manage the shoreline. It was noted that there were three different levels of shoreline management.  The Christchurch Bay area extended into New Forest District Council and therefore they would also be approving the plan. Previous plans which were in place did not have the approval of the Environment Agency.

·     In response to a question regarding whether there was any modelling available for the different scenarios and the impact of the long groyne at Hengistbury Head. It was noted that the long groyne was covered under the Poole Bay Management plan and there was funding available for work on this which would begin next year.  There was an in-house model running on sediment movement around the two bays. However, there were no plans in place to change the shape and length of the groyne except to increase the height to deal with rising sea levels.  There was also a concern that too much sediment could have impact by blocking up the harbour.

·     In response to a query regarding the different plans in place and where the ownership and responsibility sat with these the Board was informed that that there was currently a strategy in place for Poole Bay to Poole Harbour to Wareham but this strategy was required for the frontage from Hengistbury head eastwards and would cover this area from a strategic position in conjunction with the other coastal plans in place.

Managing unauthorised Encampments: Policies and Procedures - The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix B to the Cabinet minutes of 30 September 2020 in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board and Members of the Working Group in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Working Group member advised the Board that there were cautious about the recommendation regarding a stopping place. The Borough of Poole had been through an exercise to identify a stopping place at least twice and a site wasn’t identified. They commented that on paper it looked like a sensible option but in reality, it would be difficult to carry out.

·     Another Group member commented that when looking at this previously all of the solutions seemed to depend on making progress in actively looking for alternative stopping places. The ability to take out pre-emptive injunctions was useful but dependent upon seeking out alternative stopping places. The commented that they felt that they were a  fairly balanced set of recommendations.

·     A Board member suggested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

To conside corporate issues including the following report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 30 September:

·       2019/20 End of Year Performance Report

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor David Brown, Portfolio Holder for Finance.

The Cabinet report is attached for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

2019/20 End of Year Performance Report - The Corporate Director and former Leader of the Council introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘G’ to the Cabinet minutes of 30 September 2020 in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Councillor raised a query about the issues with facilities for older people, there were sites earmarked in local plans for care homes, but that people were not interested in developing them. The Councillor asked why this appeared to be such a difficult target to meet. This was primarily a legacy issue from Bournemouth as there were more people in residential care than home care. All three issues were linked together, there was an aim to have more people in Bournemouth living in an independent setting and with a new facility opening in Bournemouth all three of these issues should improve.

·     There was a concern raised that reference one on the scorecard should perhaps be orange rather than red as it was improving and was better than forecast. The target also appeared to be high when compared to the national average. It was noted that in this instance it could perhaps be orange and was possibly unduly harsh.

·     In a response to a query raised about paragraph 82 of the report the Board was advised that a suicide prevention plan was part of the Cabinet Forward Plan and was about 3 or 4 months away from coming forward.

·     A Councillor commented that paragraphs 88 onwards within the report appeared to be very light in detail and suggested that there was a need for specifics on what the Council were doing going forwards. It was noted that this was a reflection on the basket of measures previously used and shadowed for this year. Targets had been set out for 2020/21 but this reflected the part of the year when the Council did not have a corporate strategy signed off and the associated performance management framework was not signed off until a few weeks ago. 

The former Leader advised that there were a  number of measures where the Council was doing exceptionally well, and she congratulated everyone on the number of greens outlined in the paper on areas such as children’s social care, delayed discharge and processing benefit claims.

To consider the following meeting dates for the 2020/21 municipal year:

·      19 October 2020

·      16 November 2020

·      7 December 2020

·      4 January 2021

·      1 February 2021

·      1 March 2021

·      1 April 2021

All meetings will be held via video conferencing until further notice.

The future meeting dates were noted.