Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Cllr J Butt and Cllr T O’Neill.

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 D Borthwick substituted for Cllr T O’Neill.

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 meetings held on 18 October 2021.

The minutes of the meetings held on 18 October 2021 were approved as a correct record.

To note and comment on the attached action sheet which tracks decisions, actions and recommendations from previous meetings.

The Chairman highlighted that there was a typo in the Action Sheet regarding point 96. In Point 96, the date of the Cabinet meeting read: ‘27 November 2021’ and should have correctly read: ’27 October 2021’. The Committee noted this.

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 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 issues submitted for this meeting.

To consider the BCP Futures – a new Economic Development Strategy for BCP Cabinet Report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 24 November 2021.

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration Economy and Strategic Planning

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth and Regeneration, supported by the Head of Economic Development and Sustainability 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.

Officers responded to comments and requests for clarification, details included:

·       BCP Council would create the right environment for businesses to flourish through four priority areas of action. In return, BCP Council expected businesses to commit to a ‘7-point pledge’. Members heard that BCP Council would lead by example and work collaboratively with businesses in order to improve productivity and prosperity.

·       On the reference to a BCP ‘cityscape’ within the Economic Development Strategy (EDS), the Board were informed that BCP Council were not intending to citify the conurbation. The Deputy Leader clarified that existing areas of an industrial or city-like nature would receive relevant attention in order to regenerate and improve them appropriately.

·       The EDS throws weight behind four key priorities, such as supporting productivity of small and medium sized businesses, rather than being too broad and prioritising all aspects of economic delivery. The Board hear that the expectation was for this process to be transactional between the Council and businesses and that productivity was to be the barometer to show if the EDS was working.

·       BCP Council had awarded over £160million in grants to local businesses and charities in the last 18 months, to assist them in moving forward after the pandemic. The ‘Bounce Back Fund’ was used as an example of financial support that BCP Council could use to meet the rising expectations of the business community.

·       BCP’s Economic Development team, consisting of 10 members of staff championed the business community and facilitated the transactions between the Council and businesses. The team included dedicated account managers for separate sectors within the business community. The Portfolio Holder was confident that they had the resources in place to meet the rising expectations of the business community and deliver the priorities within the EDS. Members heard from the Head of Economic Development and Sustainability that this would require certain small changes to the team’s focus. An example of where this focus would shift to was in developing the local supply chains. Finally, the Board were told that the Economic Development team would continue to meet with industry leaders to discuss the big issues facing the business community.

·       On the matter of the Small Grants Fund, the Deputy Leader explained that at this point in time he did not know the detail of the fund but wanted to replicate the success of the pandemic funding schemes going forward, for example the Bounce Back Fund.

·       The Deputy Leader stated that BCP was not a wholly industrial region and that he did not believe that it was a binary choice between economic productivity and climate action.

·       On the employment skills gap, the Deputy Leader explained that he was eager to view the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

When the O&S Board considered this issue prior to the Summer the Board requested a further update to include a review of the Seasonal Response Plan.

The attached report provides a full review of the seasonal response delivery which ran from 29 March to 19 September 2021.

Relevant Officers and Cabinet Portfolio Holders will be in attendance at the meeting to respond to questions from Board members.

The Portfolio Holder for Tourism and Active Health and the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Transport, supported by the Head of Seasonal Response and the Head of Operations for Tourism 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 Portfolio Holders and Officers responded to comments and requests for clarification, details included:

·       On the matter of anti-litter signage, the Portfolio Holder for Tourism and Active Health explained that this was a pilot scheme, and that feedback was important. He acknowledged that the language on the signs may not be to everyone’s tastes but expressed that the priority was for the signs to be effective.

·       On the matters of footfall figures and traffic counts, it was explained that there was no way to differentiate between the number of petrol/diesel vehicles and the number of electric vehicles that were used to travel to and from the beaches during Summer. Furthermore, Members heard that footfall cameras at Pier Approach were utilised in order to capture an accurate figure for the number of people who passed through that area during Summer. It was explained that the Council were looking at other ways of using digital technology to collect visitor data and that this was being proposed across different areas of beach.

·       On Park and Ride, it was acknowledged that the numbers of people that used the park and ride service, particularly from the Poole Civic Centre, were low and that this should be reviewed for next year. The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability welcomed comments and suggestions on the park and ride service, including the possibility of a centralised park and ride location that could link to all three towns, different pricing rates for residents and visitors and congestion zones in particularly busy areas.

·       On the matter of towing, the decision was made to locate the contracted tow trucks in areas they would have the greatest effect as a deterrent to illegal parking. The Board heard that a total of 43 vehicles were towed during the Summer and that the Council would review this when looking ahead to next Summer.

·       The cost of fines that can be issued to illegally parked cars is set by national government. Members heard that the Council had been lobbying and meeting with ministers to convince the Department for Transport to increase the level of fines. Proposals on this matter going forward would be made available for people to see.

·       On the matter of government funding, the Board were informed that £3.5million was awarded to BCP Council to fund their seasonal response. Members heard that there was an underspend of £800,000 which therefore left some flexibility in their seasonal response budget. It was acknowledged that this funding may not be available every year but the Portfolio Holder for Tourism and Active Health confirmed that they would be applying for any and all available funding in future.

·       The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

To consider the Pokesdown Railway Station Improvement Cabinet Report scheduled for consideration on 24 November 2021:

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Transport

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Transport, supported by the Section151 Officer, presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'C' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The Portfolio Holder and Officers responded to comments and requests for clarification, details included:

·       On the matter of funding, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that this would be a tripartite agreement between BCP Council, South Western Rail (SWR) and Network Rail (NR), with the Council paying up to a maximum of £2.6million. SWR and NR would pay a combined £3.1million toward the final cost. NR had entered the funding agreement as a voluntary partner as their investment would see an enhancement to their own asset. Members heard that the matter of the public subsidy had been well explored and that this was an appropriate way of using the future’s fund.

·       The Portfolio Holder was not aware of any other contractual obligations, similar to what was agreed with Pokesdown Station, within the franchise agreements of other BCP area stations.

·       The Department for Transport (DFT) would not allow any additional spending above contractual requirements by rail companies.

·       On the matter of footfall, Members heard that 350,000 people enter and exit Pokesdown Station throughout a normal year.

·       The matter was at the outline business case and was awaiting approval by the DFT, subject to any requirements they may have.

·       On the matter of financial liability, the Section 151 Officer explained that if one of the other parties were to go bankrupt, the expectation would be for the contractual obligations, in this case the funding contribution and construction of the lifts, to transfer to whoever subsequently takes up the responsibility. If this was not fulfilled or if the asset was not maintained in future, the Council would look to recover the sums that it had invested through this arrangement.

·       Network Rail (NR) are not a revenue-based organisation and their job is to provide infrastructure to the railway industry. South West Rail (SWR) have a responsibility for the station itself. NR do not have an obligation under the existing franchise contract to provide the £1.5million of funding. NR’s investment is to ensure the safety and structural integrity of the bridge that connects the two lifts. However, the Council successfully negotiated for any surplus funds from NR’s £1.5million investment to be put toward the other elements of the station enhancements.

·       The lifts element of the project provides the greatest risk and detailed costings still need to be clarified and agreed. The hope is that once the detailed costings are finalised, the financial risk of the lifts element would reduce.

·       On the suggestion of a loan of funds from the Council to SWR for the purposes of this project, the Section 151 confirmed that this option had not been explored.

·       Several Members raised concerned over SWR seeming to avoid the commitments of their franchise agreement. The Board discussed the use of taxpayer money for this project  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.