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 12 noon, 3 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:
Cabinet was advised that no statements or petitions had been received on this occasion but that four questions had been received from two members of the public in relation to Agenda Item 7 (The future of BCP FuturePlaces Ltd, investment and development) and Agenda Item 10 (SEND – Accelerated Timeliness).
Questions received from Mr Alex McKinstry on Agenda Item 7
Question 1
Regarding Item 7, the future of FuturePlaces: the table on page 91 states the estimated costs of running FuturePlaces until closure would be £1.06 million. Presumably office rental costs form part of that figure. According to Companies House the registered office of FuturePlaces is BCP Civic Centre, but the company's minutes reveal that board meetings have also been conducted this year at 45 Westminster Bridge Road; "Bourne Gardens", Exeter Park Road; and "The View" (which may be the same property), Bourne Park, Exeter Park Road. Can the Leader / Portfolio-Holder for Finance confirm how much rent and other charges are being paid for each of these premises, and indeed for any other office space utilised by FuturePlaces? Can we also be told which of these premises is being rented from a company associated with ex-Cllr Drew Mellor?
Response by the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth, Regeneration and Transformation
Within the £1.06m estimated costs of running FuturePlaces Ltd until its closure, an amount of £27k has been provided for in relation to premise rental costs at Bourne Gardens. There are no other costs or payments relating to other addresses. The payment for this £27,000 was made to Hinton Road Investment Ltd. Our understanding is that a former Councillor is the sole director of Hinton Road Investment Ltd.
For completeness, in addition to the rent, a total sum of £4,726 excluding VAT has been paid over the last year, for additional room hire, outside of the core office space.
Question 2
Continuing with operating costs: the FuturePlaces chair stated at last week's scrutiny meeting that notice had been given to ex-Cllr Mellor's company in respect of that particular office space. When will the lease expire, what was its original duration (including the start date), and can we have details of any financial penalty imposed by the landlord in respect of the early forfeiture of the lease?
Response by the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth, Regeneration and Transformation
I want to make a correction to what I said last week, as part of this answer. Last week I said that former councillor Mellor had purchased the building that FuturePlaces occupy. Former councillor Mellor has made it clear in public statements that he does not own that building. I am happy to accept that statement at face value and apologise to him for my use of that specific term.
However, his company, Hinton Road Investment Ltd, of which he is the sole director according to the records at Companies House, licences those offices to FuturePlaces and had done since August 2022 and Hinton Road Investment Ltd has invoiced for, and is in receipt of the rent from FuturePlaces. The licence was first granted for two years from 1 August 2022 and has recently been renewed at a rent of £54,000 per year, the first 6 month’s rent has been paid, and Notice has been given to terminate that licence from 31 January 2024, for which there is no financial penalty. I would also confirm that the new licence, signed on 14 August 2023, is between Hinton Road investment Ltd and FuturePlaces and the rent was paid to Hinton Road Investment Ltd.
As I said earlier, I apologise for saying that former Cllr Mellor had purchased the building. He may not own the building, but it is clear that he has acquired the company which is in receipt of the rent and which licences the offices to FuturePlaces.
Question 3
Turning to Table 12.1 (pp. 83-84), and the reordering of FuturePlaces projects in the event that regeneration is brought in-house. The two projects listed for "priority delivery" here are the Holes Bay power station site, and the Dolphin Leisure Centre. Why these two sites? The Holes Bay project is undoubtedly very interesting, but given the ambitiousness of the project, plus the known problems with the land (including flood risk and actual contamination), I would have thought any council with budgetary pressures would be giving this site a very wide berth indeed. I'd be genuinely keen to hear why this site is being prioritised, therefore; ditto the Dolphin Leisure Centre, and any other sites I may have missed.
Response by the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth, Regeneration and Transformation
Holes Bay and Dolphin Leisure Centre are prioritised sites due to their potential to deliver much needed housing, and at the Dolphin site a new leisure and pool facility. FuturePlaces have worked to bring the former power station site at Holes Bay, which is the largest regeneration brownfield site on the south coast, forward to a point where the site is ready for early discussions with investors to bring forward development. It is a complicated site but technology has changed and different options are opening up to deal with both flood risk and contamination.
Question received from Mr Adam Sofianos relating to Agenda Item 10 (Question read by Mr McKinstry)
The question relates to agenda item 10: 'SEND Accelerated Timeliness':
"Today's paper reveals that a key element of Council's education service is struggling.
The percentage of Education, Health and Care Plans completed within the statutory period is: zero.
The case backlog sits at 397.
Council has been invited to join the Safety Valve programme. This would contractually bind Council to annual cost-saving targets. But Safety Valve is controversial, and participants like Kent and Bury have experienced huge issues, and media headlines, in pursuit of these targets.
Notably, neither today's paper nor Safety Valve have been scrutinised by Committee, and signature is delegated to executives.
Yet this isn't just a financial decision. It could have huge consequences for many children and families here.
Could you provide reassurance that Council will commit to allowing any contract and management plan to be properly scrutinised by Committee, before it's agreed, and if possible bring it to a Cabinet or Council vote?"
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People
Thank you, Mr Sofianos, for the question and your continued interest in this extremely important area.
Before I answer your question, to help anyone who wasn’t at Children’s O&S last week, this question very much follows on from your question to that committee. What I say when I introduce agenda item 10 will also, I hope, clarify my answer.
Following on from my answer last week, BCP has been invited to join the Safety Valve program. BCP has accepted the invitation to enter into negotiations. I would emphasise negotiations.
Due to the size of the High Needs Block deficit, the council would be remiss not to enter into negotiations as the High Needs Block deficitrepresents a significant risk to the council.
This is not a formal decision but an agreement to negotiate, therefore an operational decision and within the delegated powers of the chief executive.
The first step is to provide the DfE with The BCP SEND Strategy, Draft DSG Management Plan & DBV bid, which have already been done.
When the negotiations are complete any financial decisions will come before the appropriate Council decision-making body as in the constitution, depending on the financial consequences (either positive or negative).
To Clarify Page 5-59 of the financial regulations within the constitution provides the following:
Accepting external funding (BCP aggregate total including any ‘match-funding’ element and partner(s) share(s) if BCP is lead body or ‘host’)
Up to £100,000 Service Director - CFO
Between £100,000 and £1.0M Cabinet / cabinet member (with advice from the CFO)
Over £1.0M Council (with advice from the CFO)
If officers are unable to reach a negotiated position, then I would report that back to Cabinet for information.
I would like to assure you that I am keeping a close watch on this process as my primary focus is improvement in outcomes for our children. I would also welcome scrutiny paying an active part in this. It has a vital role. I do, however, also have the responsibility to monitor the impact of Children’s services on council’s finances.