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/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions 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.
Minutes:
There were no public petitions or statements. Four public questions had been received from Mr McKinstry, a local resident. Mr McKinstry was in attendance to read out his questions. Responses to the questions were provided by the Portfolio Holder. The questions and responses were as follows:
1. Can you clarify whether the outline business case for Chapel Lane, and the sums of money cited in the officer's report, relate purely to the north side of that site? I can Clarify that the Outline Business Case and any sums cited relate to the north part of Chapel Lane only.
2. The officer's report states FuturePlaces will receive £31,000 if the outline business case for Chapel Lane gets approved, and £42,000 if Constitution Hill goes through. Can we have the equivalent figures for the other three sites? (I appreciate the actual reports have been deferred.) A number of the reports will be coming to the next Cabinet mee3ting. Figures for the remaining outline business cases for the sites to be considered will be made available when the reports are published.
3. If these schemes get approval, the Council will also be obliged to commit £350,000 for a full business case for Constitution Hill, plus £753,000 for Chapel Lane. Again, can we have the equivalent figures for the other three sites, and are these sums likely to be met by further PWLB borrowing?
Yes, I can confirm that they will be met by further Public Works Loan Board borrowing and upon consideration and approval of the outline business cases the Council will be able to include the Chapel Lane and Constitution Hill projects in the capital programme and commit these funds to fully work up the schemes and complete the full business cases.
Figures for the remaining outline business cases for the sites will be considered at later Cabinet meeting will be made available when the reports are published.
4. Finally, do these figures include a profit element or a success fee, both of which were cited as possibilities in the FuturePlaces business plan; and if so, can you confirm the relevant percentages? (Profits and success fees were discussed on pages 53 and 55 of the 'public reports pack' for the 16 June meeting of this committee, using PDF pagination: https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=5341)
First of all the full business case for Constitution Hill is worked up directly by the Council’s Housing development team, and this fee will not include a profit element or a success fee.
The figures cited for Chapel have been calculated in accordance with the Cost plus charging model detailed in section 7.2 of the approved company business plan and covers third party costs, FuturePlaces development advice, staff costs and overheads and a profit element. A success fee is not payable in this instance as it does not relate to an acquisition or disposal.
The Chairman reminded members that there may be a need for the meeting to move into a non-public session but as far as possible discussions on the exempt information would be undertaken at the end of the meeting after discussing all schemes.
There was some discussion about what issues were inside and outside of the scope of the public and non-public parts of the session and how this should be addressed by the Committee it was noted that as far as possible most material could remain in public session but figures around certain issues would need to be considered within a non-public session.
The Lead Member for engagement commented that it needed to be clear what issues were not within the public domain and the reason for excluding information from the public should be made clear.