Venue: Virtual Meeting
Contact: Claire Johnston - 01202 123663 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
To receive any apologies for absence from Members.
Apologies were received from Cllr M Cox and Cllr B Dion.
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 T Trent substituted for Cllr M Cox, and Cllr A Filer substituted for Cllr B Dion, for this meeting of the Board.
Declarations of Interests
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.
In relation to the agenda item on Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Portion, Cllr V Slade declared for transparency that she was a Trustee of Broadstone Neighbourhood Forum.
In relation to the agenda item on Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Portion, Cllr M Brooke (non-Committee Member) declared for transparency that he was Vice Chair and a Trustee of Broadstone Neighbourhood Forum.
In relation to the agenda item on Call in of decision of Whitecliff Road ETRO, Cllr T Trent declared that he was one of the councillors who had signed the call in.
To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on 1 February 2021.
The Chairman reported on one outstanding item on the action sheet, around data relating to mandatory training for members of staff. At the request of Board Member he had followed this up with the Director of Organisational Development. It was noted that improvements in this area in the near future had been assured. The item was therefore now marked on the action sheet as completed.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 1 February 2021 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.
To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution, which is available to view at the following link:
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.
The Board was advised that the following public statements had been received in relation to the Call in of the Decision on Whitecliff Road ETRO:
· Lucie Allen
· Iain Murray
· Mark Sanders
· Andrew Wickham, Managing Director, Go South Coast
These statements had been published on the Council’s website and a link sent to Board Members, who confirmed that the statements had been received and read.
The Board is asked to review and scrutinise the decision of the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability in relation to the Whitecliff Road ETRO, following the receipt of a valid call-in request from the pre-requisite number of councillors.
In accordance with the Constitution, the Board must determine whether or not to offer any advice in relation to the decision. If advice is offered, Cabinet will be required to reconsider the decision and consider any advice offered.
The Chairman outlined the remit of the Board and explained the procedure to be followed in determining the Call-in of the Portfolio Holder’s decision to revoke the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) for Whitecliff Road. He referred to the national context, where some ETROs had proved controversial, as in this case. He asked members to respect each other’s views and the role of the Chair in considering the Call-in.
The Monitoring Officer 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. She outlined the purpose of the Call-in provisions in respect of executive functions. She explained the role of Monitoring Officer in determining the validity of the Call-in, by assessing whether the reasons given for the Call-in met the criteria in Procedure Rule 10 (Call-in). In this case it was considered that there were reasonable grounds to suggest that a debate could be had around the criteria that ‘the decision was not made in accordance with the principles of decision making set out in Article 12 of the Constitution’.
The principles of decision making in Article 12 were set out in the report. The Board was required to test the reasons given for the Call in against these principles. The reasons provided for the Call-in had been grouped against individual principles in the report for ease of reference. The Monitoring Officer provided further clarity on the Leader’s scheme of delegation in respect of Portfolio Holder decisions, and the procedures in place to publish the decision and make representations before the final decision was enacted.
In response to a question the Monitoring Officer explained that it was not a requirement to list the Call-in signatories in the report but there was no reason why this could not be included in future reports.
The Chairman invited the lead Call-in member, Cllr A Hadley, to present the reasons for the Call-in, as set out in paragraphs 9 to 43 of the report. Cllr Hadley highlighted some key points, as follows:
To consider the
Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Portion report
scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 10 March.
The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the report and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.
Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning
The Cabinet report is circulated with the agenda for consideration by the O&S Board.
The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning 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 outlined the proposed governance arrangements for both strategic and neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies. These arrangements aimed to provide a unified approach to the allocation of BCP CIL receipts. The Portfolio Holder explained that following a review, which had included feedback from an all Member seminar in December 2020, it was proposed to revise the current arrangements for the allocation of the CIL neighbourhood portion to operate two schemes. He explained that the main purpose of the neighbourhood portion was to mitigate the impact of development particularly in respect of infrastructure. The proposed arrangements put in place a ward-based scheme and a scheme to enable those communities less directly impacted to access funding. Details of both schemes, including further information on the bidding and allocation procedures, were set out in the report.
The Portfolio Holder thanked the Lead Member for Engagement for her work in developing the proposals. The Lead Member referred to areas where there was a Neighbourhood Plan in place, these areas were entitled to a 25% ringfenced neighbourhood portion. She also highlighted that different wards were able to work together to submit joint bids.
A Board Member asked if there was any scope to increase the frequency of the bidding process from twice yearly, to help ward councillors who wanted to submit small bids for minor works. The Portfolio Holder explained that there was a delicate balance to be struck, but acknowledged that twice yearly bidding may be limiting. The Lead Member agreed that it may be possible to include an extra round for smaller bids.
A Board Member felt there was a lack of detail on the governance arrangements for the Strategic CIL. The Portfolio Holder explained that this report covered the neighbourhood portion and that details on the strategic portion would be brought forward later. The Head of Planning reported that the terms of reference were still in draft form and could be finalised by the CIL Allocations Panel.
A Board Member asked about the 5% administration costs. It was explained that CIL Regulations enabled 5% of all receipts to be spent on the administration aspects of collecting and spending CIL. This was accepted practice and was intended to fund the whole process, including three CIL officers for BCP Council. Any funds not spent went back into the CIL pot.
A Member not on the Board welcomed the provisions in Scheme 2 as a way of overcoming inequalities in those wards with little or no development. He asked if Paragraph 11 of the report could be amended to include reference to the Council working with ward councillors in association with Neighbourhood Forums, etc, as he was aware that arrangements varied for Neighbourhood Forums in the BCP Council area. The Portfolio Holder assured members ... view the full minutes text for item 158.