Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Councillor D Kelsey

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 Dunlop acted as substitute for Cllr D Kelsey

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.

A Councillor queried whether a Councillor appointed as a Cabinet Lead Member could sit on scrutiny bodies. The Monitoring Officer advised that there was nothing in legislation to prevent Councillors with this role from taking part in Overview and Scrutiny

Provided that their portfolios did not cross over with the content of the meeting agenda there was nothing to prevent Cabinet Lead Members from participating in a meeting and even where portfolios crossed over that Councillor would need to consider their position and declare an interest where this might be relevant.

Other Councillors also raised concerns and objections to the Cabinet Lead Members participating in Overview and Scrutiny Bodies.

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 the following housing related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 11 November 2020:

•   Housing Allocations Policy

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 Bob Lawton, Portfolio Holder for Homes

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

Housing Allocations Policy - The Portfolio Holder for Homes introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘C’ to the Cabinet minutes of 11 November in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Board member commented that merging three policies would always be a challenge. However, they raised concerns regarding the loose and vague wording used in several instances throughout the document. The Portfolio Holder advised that each case would be decided upon by its merits and that he didn’t want a document which would constrain officers too much, however he took on board the comments from the Councillor. An officer advised that this policy also applied to social landlords and the Council had no legal control as to whether they may undertake particular proceedings and therefore this was the reason for some of the wording.

·     A Councillor commented that he was pleased to see hospital discharges included in e emergency band for accommodation. The Councillor also asked how the legacy policies came together in terms of tenancy lengths and successions. It was noted that everybody was being reassessed but the plan for this was still being finalised. There was a concern that Bournemouth residents had been on the register longer but most people across the whole of BCP had been reassessed in the last five years.

·     In response to a question regarding Councillor engagement in the appeals process. It was noted that there was a need to be very careful how this process was handled but the Portfolio Holder advised that he would discuss this issue with officers. The process for reviews was set out in law and is always conducted by a senior officer.

·     A Councillor raised concerns about anti-social behaviour and felt that there should be stronger measures to deal with this. The Portfolio Holder advised that his was taken seriously and appropriate measures would be taken to deal with anti-social behaviour. It was explained by an officer that the behaviour on anti-social behaviour was covered in a completely separate policy.

·     In response to a question regarding sanctions for those in the emergency band who refuse a direct let, the Board was advised that there should be no reason for someone to turn down an offer but if someone unreasonably turned down a property which met their needs, they would be changed to a band which would next best reflect their needs.

·     A Councillor commented on a section on sanctions within the draft which had been removed. There was concern that the sanctions outlined in the bidding process were putting off some older residents from bidding. The officer advised in managing the restrictions previously they had only written three warning letters and had not had to restrict anybody.

·     Check on last section.

·     A Councillor raised concerns about paragraph 8.1, which allowed for a minor amendment by head of housing and portfolio holder. The five percent outlined could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

To consider the following regeneration related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 11 November 2020:

·         Lansdowne Programme

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 Phil Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability

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

Cllr B Dunlop advised that she would not take part in the discussion of any subsequent vote on the next item due to her position as Cabinet Lead Member for Bournemouth Regeneration not taking part in the next item on regeneration

Lansdowne Programme - The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘D’ to the Cabinet minutes of 11 November in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·       A Board member commented that the difference between this scheme and the scheme inherited from the previous administration was that cars would be allowed through on Holdenhurst Road, to try to mitigate congestion in this area.

·       The Portfolio Holder was asked how confident he was on the deadline being achieved. The Portfolio Holder advised that it was his priority to make decision as quickly as possible and he would not be making any changes which would cause problems with the programme meeting the deadline. However it was identified as a risk within the programme but the Portfolio Holder was confident that it would be achieved within the timeframe available.

·       A Board member raised concerns that the scheme would not be able to meet the originally intended aims and questioned whether there was any scope to get greater flexibility in the time frame in order to allow further thought as to whether through traffic was necessary or if something different could be initiated to create a better outside space. The Chairman commented that the lead in time for road orders and any changes to road networks would take a very long time and a lot of the prep work had already been done which would make further changes to the scheme difficult

·       With reference to the recommendation D within the report on equalities a Board member asked for confirmation that there would have been appropriate consultation on shared spaces and assurance that issues concerning shared spaces would be considered. The Portfolio Holder advised that he would liaise closely with the lead member for equalities on these issues. Traffic measures would curb traffic, and this would be part of the process but that he would certainly promote the issue raised.

·       A Board member raised concerns about the options outlined in the report and that the previous administration’s preferred option was not included with the report, noting that the purpose of the paper was for Cabinet to take a decision and not for a political decision to be taken in advance of the paper. The Portfolio Holder advised that he would not normally expect to see the previous administrations option to be included within a report to Cabinet, and that the previous option would cause congestion. The Chief Executive advised that he expected all options to be included within the report and would take this away for consideration in consultation with the Monitoring Officer. The Director of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

To consider the following transformation related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 11 November 2020:

·       Estate and Accommodation Project

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 Drew Mellor, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Finance and Transformation

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

Estate and Accommodation Project - The Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Transformation and Finance introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘I’ to the Cabinet minutes of 11 November in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·     A Councillor raised the issue that the original figure of £29million was agreed cross party before the pandemic and the way that the Council responded to it and that the figure for the project three or four months ago had already reduced to about £10million pounds and clarified that the reduction from the original figure to the now £6million figure did not happen overnight.

·     A Board member asked about the decoupling of the civic space from the office space with no indication of what the cost, timeline and impact would be of this work. The public entrance and mayor’s parlour was part of the commitment to make the whole site fully disabled friendly and the Leader of the Council was asked how this would be impacted. The Leader advised that Councillors would be consulted on about this space and a hybrid option would be developed. The Leader also confirmed that disabled access was being championed and he would be working on solutions to this issue.

·     A Councillor queried what would be happening to the annex as it was referred to in one area of the report and then seemed to be omitted in others. It was expected that all staff would fit into the town hall footprint while this is being considered he Town Hall Annex would be retained.

·     The Portfolio Holder was questioned on the choices provided to staff for where people may choose to work, originally there was an intention that staff could work from hubs, at home or in the new civic centre. The Board was advised that the Council would be developing a hybrid option for working with. There was still very much an ambition to have drop in areas for staff within the libraries.

·     A Board Member raised concerns about the financing for the project to borrowing and that a lot of this did not appear to be investment but was in fact restructuring and change. The Leader advised that this deliver a £700k net benefit largely due to maintenance costs.

·     In response to a query about the disposal of the sites the Leader advised that the disposal of the sites was not already decided and there were a number of different options for how the sites could be taken forward at present.

·     A Councillor commented that he welcomed a considered view on the development of the strategy and that a quick sale of the sites may not release best value and that these issues need to be looked at carefully. The Leader agreed with this and commented that he didn’t feel that a quick sale would be best value and want to get long term  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.