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 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:
The Committee was advised of the receipt of four public questions and two public statements.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Public Question from Mr Alex McKinstry
Question 1.
Can the chair confirm that if the Committee wishes to debate tonight's report on the Bayside Restaurant, they will need to vote on whether to exclude the press and public? I well remember this being done at full Council on 10 January 2023, when the sale of Council assets was discussed - on which occasion, the vote was lost and the debate continued in open session. My understanding is that press and public can only be excluded "by resolution" of the relevant Committee, pursuant to Section 1(2) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. But I'd be happy to stand corrected, as long as I'm given chapter and verse.
Response
Thank you for your question Mr McKinstry. The regulations you quote are incorrect but the principle is correct. For clarity, the 1960 Act relates to meetings of parish and town councils and not principal councils.
The Local Government Act 1972, Section 100(A)(4), permits councils to pass a resolution to exclude the press and public from a meeting during an item of business whenever it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information. The reasons for exempting an item of business are set out in Schedule 12A of the Act.
The resolution to be passed this evening is included in the briefing papers should the committee wish to discuss the detail of the exempt appendices and will be moved, seconded and voted upon accordingly.
Public Questions from Mr Ian Redman
Question 1.
Which senior managers with governance or managerial responsibility were made aware of the losses made by the Bayside? When were they made aware of the losses and what actions did they take? Managerial responsibility would be equivalent to Head of Destination and Culture or above.
Response
It was identified after the first week of operations that Bayside income was not meeting expectations, this was communicated to senior managers within Destination and Culture. Due to the sunk (fixed) costs already incurred, the decision was made to continue with the operations but with advice given to the Bayside operator from seafront staff on adaptions to the operation such as reducing the spend on variable costs, such as food produce ordering, where possible, limiting the spend in line with customer throughput of the restaurant. Senior Managers within Destination and Culture were aware of the anticipated loss for Bayside in September 2022 with the total loss being advised in early November 2022 once all costs had been confirmed.
Question 2.
Plans for the Bayside began in March 2022 or earlier. The Bayside logo was being promoted on the 25th April. The caterer and infrastructure suppliers were being booked from May onwards. Why do you say the decision to go ahead with the Bayside was made on or around 22nd June when suppliers were being booked and goods purchased from April onwards.
Response
Planning, including discussions with perspective suppliers, for the Bayside restaurant did begin in March 2022 or earlier but the decision to go ahead was made on, or around the 22 June 2022. Any suppliers booked and goods purchased from April onwards, and before 22 June, were Bournemouth Air Festival related. Bayside was fundamentally a trial to extend the opening period and offer of the 4 day corporate, VIP and sponsor dining infrastructure for the Bournemouth Air Festival, to a wider restaurant offer and opening period, prior to the Air Festival, in August 2022.
Question 3.
A "booking instalment" invoice for £5,000 was received from the caterer dated 5th May. A FOI response states, “It was unclear when the invoice dated 5th May was actually received by the Council.” It is normal practice in the hospitality industry to ask for a deposit (instalment) to confirm a booking. A purchase order for £5,000 was raised on the 13th July and a procurement waiver approved in late July, both at least two months late. Were you correct in saying there was no breach of the Financial Regulations?
Response
The Council’s Head of Audit & Management Assurance, who was responsible for the Internal Audit investigation is able to say that no Financial Regulation Breach has been identified related to the ordering and payments to the caterer. Although a supplier ‘booking’ invoice is dated 5 May, this invoice was not paid until after the decision to proceed had been made and formal purchase orders were raised. The invoice was paid on 20 July 2022. Councillors on the A&G Committee have been provided with the Freedom of Information request response.
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Public Statements from Mr Alex McKinstry
Statement 1.
3.4 of the Bayside summary states: "The widely-held view amongst staff that Bayside was undertaken at councillors' insistence is not reflected in correspondence between Officer A ... and the Portfolio-Holder for Culture & Vibrant Places." Notwithstanding that assertion, I've received an FOI response describing how "a formal strategic instruction e-mail" was sent by the portfolio-holder to the service director, "talk[ing] about increasing the quality of the overall offer (compared to 2021)" and inviting "opportunities for local businesses". The Bayside evolved, meanwhile, against the backdrop of the so-called "Big Plan", which spoke of "harnessing the potential of our coastline of opportunity" and which underpinned pretty much everything the Mellor administration did in 2021-2. It's arguable, therefore, that political pressure did shape and inform the Bayside venture, something the Committee might wish to explore when contemplating Item 8 this evening.
Statement 2.
I've also used the FOIA to obtain a copy of the public interest test which recommended withholding the Bayside report (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bayside_internal_audit#incoming-2475936), and I disagree with it implacably. Especially irksome was the paragraph about protecting the Council's commercial interests by withholding "details of bids": the two main contractors for Bayside did not have to bid, at least not competitively, one contractor benefiting from procurement waivers to the tune of £185,000. There are other aspects of this case, too, which warrant public explanation, such as why did the Council shoulder most of the risk in this venture; why was the anticipated profit margin so tight (£36,000, of which 35% would have gone to the main contractors); and what checks were in place to stem the loss of £5,000 a day on average, totalling £173,430.19 of public money?