Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from the Chairman – Cllr P Broadhead, Cllr N Greene, Cllr M Greene; Cllr M Iyengar and Cllr 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. 

Notification of the following substitute members for this meeting was received from the relevant political group leaders or their nominated representatives:

·       Cllr D Mellor for Cllr P Broadhead, Cllr J Edwards for Cllr N Greene and Cllr S Anderson for M Greene.        

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 Brooke declared a local interest in agenda Item 7, Scrutiny of Finance Related Cabinet Reports, Capital Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) as he was a Board Member of the Bournemouth Development Company which was referenced within the report.

Cllr S Bartlett and Cllr J Edwards declared local interests in agenda item 6, Scrutiny of Regeneration Related Cabinet reports, Arts and Cultural Development in Bournemouth, as they were directors of BH Live Enterprises, which was referenced within the report.

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/documents/s2305/Public%20Items%20-%20Meeting%20Procedure%20Rules.pdf 

The deadline for the submission of public questions is Monday 9 March 2020.

The deadline for the submission of a statement is 12.00 noon, Friday 13 March 2020.

The deadline for the submission of a petition is 12.00 noon, Friday 13 March 2020.

None received

For the Board to consider any issues raised by the Chairman which are not dealt with elsewhere on the agenda.

The Chairman welcomed all members and substitute members to the board and reminded everyone that scrutiny was most effective with full participation.

The Vice-Chairman advised that she had agreed to add an urgent item of business to the agenda on the Coronavirus outbreak due to its imminent importance. The latest government advised permitted the meeting to go ahead. The Chief Executive confirmed that government advice related to stopping social contact and as this was a work meeting it would count as essential travel in terms of conducting ongoing business of the Council.

The Board was advised that if the appropriate Officer or Cabinet member was not in attendance and there were issues raised by the Board for which an immediate response could not be provided this would be addressed prior to the Cabinet meeting on 18 March.

To consider the following regeneration related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 18 March 2020:

·       Wessex Fields Site Development Strategy

·       Arts and Cultural Development in Bournemouth

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

Cabinet members invited to attend for these items: Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture and Councillor Andy Hadley, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure.

The Cabinet report will be published on Tuesday 10 March 2020 and available to view at the following link: https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=3727&Ver=4

Wessex Fields Site Development Strategy – The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture was not available for questions. The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix B to the Cabinet minutes of 18 March 2020 in the Minute Book. The Portfolio Holder advised that there were both positive and negative themes outlined. The Council were now looking at viable options to take those key themes forward. A number of points were raised by the Board including:

·     A Councillor commented that he was present at one of the events, which was well attended, and he thought it was a great way to reach out to the public. The officers at the public event provided information on the transfer from one plan to another. The focus of the events was not on transportation but on other areas such as environment, affordable housing and the hospital provided plans for a ‘living lab’.

·     Key worker housing and access to the roads. A Councillor commented that 300 key worker homes would require significant infrastructure to access the site. The Portfolio Holder advised that the consultation process was very much around land use. Discussions with the hospital were ongoing about access to the site for staff and ambulances. Access requirements would be part of the future development.

·     A Councillor asked about the Administration’s view of the development following the positive feedback from the survey. The Board was advised that the outcome of the public events showed differing opinions around the access road, there was a need to look at sustainable transport for the whole area, for example a foot and cycle bridge to Christchurch to improve access. The Cabinet’s view had not changed since previously presented.

·     Further issues were raised within the ward concerning traffic and routes around that area and the impact that any development would have. A Councillor commented that more people were in favour of the road transport scheme than against it, 30% vs 25%.

·     A Board member asked how the outcome of the recent consultation compared to the previous consultation. The original issues were from people responding to the planning consent for the previous scheme. The Portfolio Holder advised that an acceptable scheme needed to be drawn up from the outcome of the most recent consultation. With regards to transport the specific measures outlined in the report, Deansleigh access road, was supported by 6 percent and not supported by 12 percent.

·     Further queries were raised regarding a pass around the underpass to access but there was now a need to work up how the desired land use would be supported by a transport scheme, which reflected the views of residents.

·     In response to a question the Board was advised that a ‘living lab’ was a concept from Bournemouth University biological engineering and biological science related to health and social care.

·     In response to a question regarding what was meant by key workers the Portfolio Holder explained that these  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

To consider the following finance related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 18 March 2020:

·                Capital Investment Strategy (non-treasury) 2020-2025

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

Cabinet members invited to attend for this item: Councillor David Brown, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Councilor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration.

The Cabinet report will be published on Tuesday 10 March 2020 and available to view at the following link: https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=3727&Ver=4

Capital Investment Strategy (non-treasury) – The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘F’ to the Cabinet minutes of 18 March 2020 in the Minute Book. The Board was advised that the strategy updated the legacy assets, including a financial appraisal at appendix B to the report. A key issue in asking Cabinet to approve the strategy was aligning with current corporate strategy. In the ensuing discussion several points were raised, including:

A Councillor suggested that paragraph 2.3.3 of the appendix should be removed. The Portfolio Holder responded that there was a need to make sure the portfolio was diversified. There would need to be a business case and due diligence for any change with a view to risk.

It was noted that BCP Council had inherited a number of investments through the preceding authorities and bringing them together within one strategy helped to provide a more balanced picture of the overall portfolio of the Council. At present there were certain investments in the portfolio which skewed the overall picture.

A Councillor commented that the net yield and profits percentages, as set out in Appendix 2, were far too low and therefore not worth taking the risk on the investments. The Board was advised that all investments would be scrutinised by the Section 151 officer who was content with this low risk strategy. The strategy aimed to find the right balance which could be reviewed periodically if not performing appropriately.

It was confirmed that Mallard Road retail park was not making a loss. The business plan was for a £1.8m surplus but it returned a £1.6m surplus. It was partly a long term investment in terms of property value. Original cost included fees.

The Board discussed the principle of investing within the BCP Council area. The Portfolio Holder noted that there was additional socioeconomic value if investing within area but by exception would look outside of the area if it would provide a particularly identified environmental benefit. However, there were plenty of investment opportunities within the local area.

Some of the Board members commented that the triple bottom line and proposal to invest within the area was limiting and showed a lack of ambition. The Portfolio Holder suggested that the strategy would ensure the best outcome for people of the area.

A Councillor asked about the Council’s Declaration of a climate change emergency and how an environmental impact would work for each case. The Board was informed that it would challenge the Council to look at the sustainable angle of investments and work with organisations to ensure that they become more environmentally sustainable but would be considered on a case by case basis to consider.

RECOMMENDED: That Cabinet amend paragraph 2.3.3 of Appendix A –‘Capital Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) 2020-2025’ to remove all text following the end of the first sentence ‘In making an investment decision, the Council will take a balanced portfolio approach’.

Voting: For: 9, Against: 1,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

To consider the following leisure and community related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 18 March 2020:

·       Developing a harmonized approach to tackling street based antisocial behaviour

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 Lewis Allison, Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Communities.

The Cabinet report will be published on Tuesday 10 March and available to view at the following link: https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=3727&Ver=4

Developing a Harmonised Approach to Tackling Street Based Anti-Social Behaviour – The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Communities introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘F’ to the Cabinet minutes of 18 March 2020 in the Minute Book. The Portfolio Holder informed the Board that a review had been recently undertaken and the report presented the findings. It was noted that given the present situation the proposed consultation as outlined in the report will begin in the way as set out in the paper.

·     In response to a question the Portfolio Holder advised that the suggested consultation was to allow for the whole area to be dealt with in the same way. The PSPO would be consulted on prior to coming back to Cabinet for a decision. It was confirmed that the administration was not abandoning PSPOs and these would continue to be in use by the Council.

·     A Councillor commented that they supported the CSAS officers in Boscombe and welcomed the increases of officers in Poole and Bournemouth. It was suggested that at least another one for Poole and one for Bournemouth were required. It was noted that there were many other areas of the conurbation which would benefit from the presence of CSAS officers. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that he would like to have as many officers in the area as possible and would review the impact that these extra officers had and would continue to monitor the situation in future.

·     In response to a question it was confirmed that the CSAS officers wore body cameras and would continue to do so.

·     The Board questioned the reasoning behind the suggested removal of a number of the points within the PSPO. The Portfolio Holder did not believe these were providing anything additional to the other points listed in helping to improve the situation.

·     The Board asked about the deployment of CSAS officers and their ability to be more agile in terms of where they could be deployed based upon evidence that they are required there for a period of time.

·     The area in which CSAS officers operated needed to be designated by the Chief Constable based on evidence of antisocial behaviour. If there was evidence of other areas needing them the Council would need to work with Dorset Police to get those areas designated.

·     Impact on more vulnerable members of society – A Councillor commented that they were pleased to see co-ordinated approach with other agencies taking into account mental health; working on interconnected problems and resolving these issues.

·     In response to a question it was confirmed that Bournemouth and Poole had different approaches to anti-social behaviour and there was a need to harmonise across the area. Officers in Poole have a different way or working. A Councillor expressed concern that the Poole PSPO was being watered down and there was evidence base to say the PSPO in Poole had worked. The PSPO issue would be going out to public consultation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

The Assistant Director of Public Health Dorset, the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Health and Adult Social Care as well as the Chief Executive all provided updates to the Board. The Leader advised that she had taken part in a conference call with the MHCLG at lunchtime to provide an update. However following the Prime Minister’s announcement the staying at home procedures which had been discussed at the management team meeting had already changed from the government update at lunchtime. The Boar was advised that legal changes were expected tomorrow allowing for Council meetings to be varied to allow for remote engagement and the requirement to hold an annual Council would be suspended. The finance team were working on support for businesses, looking at rules around the hardship fund. There were also a number of sub-groups working on particular areas of concern.  The Council would need to take a lead on community resilience and was setting up steering group in next 24 hours to co-ordinate and take forward support. Non-essential travel had been stopped and events were being cancelled. There would be an assessment undertaken of what Council meetings were necessary and what could be done in a different.

The Cabinet meeting on Wednesday and the Health and Wellbeing Board next Thursday were still due to take place. If the Board had questions which could not be responded to this evening then answers would be supplied at either the Cabinet meeting or Health and Wellbeing Board.

The Assistant Director for Public Health provided an update on the official advise against going to large venues, events and travel. The recommendations on self-isolating were outlined. Up to this point public health was receiving updates on all cases within BCP although this was now expected to cease, and only particularly significant cases would now be reported. Locally published figures of 5 cases for the BCP area were all linked to overseas travel. London was ahead in terms of community transmission.  The situation was no longer business as usual, there was a need to do things differently and respond differently.

The Chief Executive commented on the Council’s emergency response and planning. There were tactical groups meeting within the BCP area – which included Public Health, HR and Communications representation.

This was the most serious public health threat experienced by all and there was therefore no external support available. It was important to identify the correct role which Councillors could play in this situation. The Council would look at which services could be maintained which could be reigned back on. There would be a major impact and therefore the budget would need to change significantly. There would be a paper taken to the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, identifying immediate budget issues. Other actions which were being taken included: cancelling events, looking into the hardship fund business rates rebilling and working with social care providers. However, the Emergency Planning in place was strong but there would be an impact on services.  There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 147.