Agenda item

To consider the following corporate reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 9 October:

·         Corporate Strategy

·         Equality and Diversity Strategy

·         Transforming Cities Fund Strategic Outline Business Case (Note:  this item falls under the remit of the Portfolio for Transport but will be covered by the Leader of the Council in his absence).

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 Vikki Slade, Leader of the Council.

The Cabinet report will be published on Tuesday 1 October 2019 and available to view at the following link:

https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=3722&Ver=4

The Chairman introduced the item, the purpose of which was to enable the Board to scrutinise three forthcoming Cabinet reports on corporate related issues. He invited the Leader of the Council to present each of the reports.

Corporate Strategy

The Leader explained that the draft Corporate Strategy set out the Council’s longer-term priorities and high level objectives. She reported that it had been subject to stakeholder engagement between 5 August and 6 September 2019.  This had included a range of public and partner events across the Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole area and a survey. The Leader of the Opposition had been consulted on the direction of the strategy. It was hoped that the strategy could be adopted by the Council unanimously. She thanked councillors for their engagement individually and in their wards.

The Leader provided a summary of feedback received and some suggestions for improvement which had been incorporated into the revised strategy now circulated. These included:

• Widening the lens of the strategy to acknowledge the importance of working in partnership with the voluntary/third sector and with the local economy.
• Changing the title of the document from ‘plan’ to ‘strategy’, as a better reflection of its purpose, with a more detailed plan now being developed.
• The reference to a dynamic ‘region’ had been changed to dynamic ‘places’, to recognise that there were individual dynamic areas within Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole.

Once the strategy was adopted the delivery plan would follow, to set out in detail the priorities for each area and how these aligned with the budget to ensure they were delivered.

The Leader of the Opposition confirmed that he had met with the Leader and was in agreement with the priorities and general direction of the strategy.  He was glad to see that feedback from the engagement process had been incorporated into the revised document, particularly the points made in relation to the voluntary sector and the local economy. A number of Board members commented positively on the engagement process. The opportunity for the public and councillors to be consulted in the development of the corporate strategy at the beginning of the process was welcomed.

The Leader responded to questions and comments on the report from members of the Board:

• How would any additional public engagement on the detail of the plan take place? It was explained that no further public engagement was anticipated. It was now the Council’s responsibility to develop and adopt the delivery plan, having taken into account the views of the public provided at the formative stage of the process.
• When was the strategy likely to be reviewed, bearing in mind its need to evolve alongside the new council?  The Leader explained that although there was no set date for a review, this could be programmed at an appropriate time once the plan had been given the opportunity to achieve some of its aims. She agreed to recommend that the strategy be subject to regular refresh when she presented the report to Cabinet.

The Leader thanked the Policy and Engagement teams for their work. She highlighted the achievement of receiving over 2,000 individual responses, and the positive feedback from people in being able to engage online and through social media.

The Chairman commented on the need to keep up to speed with methods of engagement as they evolved, to make it easier for people to get involved in matters they cared about.

Equality and Diversity Strategy

The Leader explained that the Council was required to have a policy to explain how it met its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, including the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The draft Equality and Diversity Policy and Governance Framework at Appendix A replaced all legacy councils’ equality and diversity policies and procedures. It was intended to make sure that all key decision changes to Council policy or services had considered and reflected positive and negative equality impacts. The Leader referred to the structure of the internal governance and implementation framework which was designed to ensure that equality and diversity was properly embedded in the Council’s activities and decisions, rather than being a tick box exercise.

The Leader drew attention to the following changes which she had requested since the report had been published, partly resulting from feedback she had received from Cllr B Dunlop regarding the use of language:

Amend Part 2: Who the policy applies to – to delete the list on page 2. Reason: The policy applies to everyone, therefore there is no need to specify particular examples.

Amend Paragraph 5.2, page 2 – ‘Dynamic Region’ to read ‘Dynamic Places’.

Reason: To reflect updated wording in Corporate Strategy.

Amend Paragraph 6.5, page 3 - Add ‘Impact Assessments must at least consider but not be limited to the 9 Protected Characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010 (to be listed). Other locally appropriate characteristics which are evidenced as suffering inequality.’

Reason: The legislation does not preclude the Council from considering other groups where appropriate, for example, socio-economic groups which do not benefit from automatic rights. It will enable an impact assessment to be made where separate reference is made in reports to any other groups which may be disadvantaged by a proposed decision. The Council will be going above and beyond what it is required to do. It may also help to address inconsistency of language in reports.

Amend Appendix A, Structure Chart – include the Opposition Spokesperson for Equalities in the membership of the Strategy Equality Leadership Group.

Reason: To provide cross party representation and a better councillor/officer ratio.

It was noted that Appendix B of the Cabinet report had been omitted due to an administrative error. The report had been subsequently updated and republished.

The Leader responded to questions and comments on the report from members of the Board:

·       Clarity was sought in the terminology used in Paragraph 6.5, as the phrases ‘which are evidenced’ or ‘may be disadvantaged’ could be interpreted differently. The Leader acknowledged the importance of getting the language right and agreed to discuss this with officers and report back to the Board.

·       It was noted that the representation on the Employee Equality Champion Implementation Group may need reviewing to include other locally appropriate characteristics.

·       There would be an opportunity to monitor how the strategy was being implemented, through annual review by the Audit and Governance Committee.

·       The role of the Member Champion in working with officers to embed the principles of the Dorset Armed Forces Covenant in policy and practice was noted. The inclusion of other locally appropriate characteristics in the impact assessment ensured that that potentially disadvantaged groups such as ex armed forces personnel could be represented.

The Leader responded to questions about the credibility and judgement of the political leadership of the Council, in light of the Deputy Leader’s opposition to a Council motion to uphold the 9 protected characteristics and condemn prejudice which was adopted in September 2019, a matter which was now on public record. The Leader explained that serious consideration had been given to referencing specific groups in the policy but on advice this was deemed to be divisive, as the purpose of the legislation was not to single out. She condemned anti semitism along with all forms of hate crime, and did not believe there was an issue with any member of the Council being anti semitic. While their views on the examples given in the definition differed, she did not believe the Deputy Leader was disadvantaging anyone through his personal beliefs, and she would expect him to be taken to task should he demonstrate at any time that he was not upholding Council policy or the duties of the Equality Act.

The Leader of the Opposition welcomed the overall view of the strategy. He thanked the Leader for the changes made in response to her correspondence with Cllr B Dunlop and for her inclusion of the Opposition Spokesperson for Equalities, Cllr A Jones, on the Strategic Equality Leadership Group.

Transforming Cities Fund Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC)

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Transport the Leader introduced a report which gave an update on progress of the Department for Transport (DfT) Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) bid and the development of the Council’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).

The Leader explained that in order to meet the bid criteria the Council had worked with Dorset to create a South East Dorset City Region which reached into urban transport corridors beyond the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole area. She thanked Conor Burns, the MP for Bournemouth West, for his work to ensure that the bid was shortlisted when the DfT extended the programme from ten to twelve areas. When the Council was drafting its Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) it had been asked to submit high, medium and low levels of ask. Since then the DfT had reported that the fund was oversubscribed and had asked the shortlisted bids to reduce their low levels of ask. The DfT had also given a clear direction that bids should focus on particular transport corridors and on increasing the use of public transport, specifically buses, cycling and walking. The Leader clarified that the redevelopment of Poole bus station was a project supported by the DfT and had been included in the preferred option for the low level of ask. As there were risks associated in delivering the bus station within the DFT’s strict timescale, alternative options for consideration had been included.

The report to Cabinet sought delegated authority for the Portfolio Holder and Senior Officers to submit the final SOBC to the DfT by the deadline of 28 November 2019.

The Leader responded to a number of questions and comments on the report from members of the Board, particularly around changes made since work on the bid commenced. Additional information on technical issues was provided by officers as required.

• Why had the original £150million in the expression of interest reduced to £117million in the business case? It was explained that the DfT had rejected specific items in the original package, including technology-based elements. This had affected the transport corridor projects as these had contained technology-based elements, as well as the more obvious effect on the technology and network management projects. The DfT had indicated over the summer that funding would not be divided equally between bids and that South East Dorset would not receive anything close to its high level figure. In view of this, focus and energy had shifted to the medium and low levels of ask.
• Why was the low level of ask, already at 70% of the anticipated average, now being reduced further? In meeting with the Council in August the DfT was explicit in what it was prepared to consider. The bid was thus revised and those schemes most likely to achieve funding were developed further. It was clarified that figures given in the report were for TCF funding only and did not include Local Transport Plan match funding or developer contributions.
• Officers provided further clarification on the costs associated with the development of the LCWIP and the draft and final SOBCs, as summarised in paragraphs 22 to 26 of the report.
• A number of concerns were put forward and maintained relating to the level of political ownership and influence in the TCF process, through direct contact with the DfT and through engagement with the local MPs. The Leader reported that she had attended a meeting with the two Bournemouth MPs, at which the TCF had been an item on the agenda for discussion. Both MPs had been helpful and supportive, and Conor Burns had offered to take the matter up directly with the Secretary of State for Transport. She had asked officers to prepare a paper to assist him in this process. She explained that there were various difficulties in engaging with the local MPs at this time, some of which previous administrations may not have faced, including the current national and local political pictures. The Board was also reminded of the time pressures involved in progressing the bid since May 2019.
• Differing views were expressed in relation to risk: on the one hand the need to focus on what was realistic and achievable, otherwise there was a risk that the bid would be rejected, and on the other hand the risk of missing out through lack of ambition and not using all the political tools available to maximise the chances of the bid’s success.
• Why were there not more projects in Christchurch? The bid reflected the DfT focus on prioritising key transport corridors to the port and airport, to relieve congestion and encourage modal shift.
• The use of Fibre City ducting could have been considered for the technology-based elements, had the DfT not shifted the emphasis of the bid.
• Comment was made about the need to promote the southern region at a national level. The Leader explained the amount of positive work which was being done in representing the Council at national and regional levels. The Council did not lack ambition and continued to discuss all levels of ask in the bid, but it was prepared with alternative options for the low level of ask if this was what the DfT awarded.
• Were there any links with the Dorset Industrial Strategy, particularly around infrastructure? It was explained that the TCF was a short-term programme with specific parameters, whereas the Industrial Strategy was a long term plan, covering a wider area and different ambitions. The Industrial Strategy included elements which the TCF had specifically excluded, such as light rail and rail connectivity.
• Did the Council’s priorities match those of the DfT, regardless of funding? The TCF was designed to achieve modal shift, which was a long-standing priority for local councils in the area.  The options put forward in the Council’s bid were those which would have the most impact on modal shift, in terms of delivering outcomes for people in getting to and travelling along the main transport corridors.
• On what basis had the focus of some of the interventions and costs changed from those in the original expression of interest, which had been deliberately spread over a number of projects to maximise modal shift – for example, what was the justification for the significant increase in funding for the Poole to Ferndown transport corridor and the Poole Bus Station transport hub at a time when the Council was being asked to reduce its overall bid? It was explained that the DfT’s shift in focus away from technology-based interventions had resulted in the reappraisal and ranking of projects in accordance with the Green Book treasury process. The outcome of the Poole to Ferndown transport corridor appraisal, which featured high levels of housing and employment, had ranked it the highest and most deliverable project in this part of the schedule. Consideration had also been given to where there was alternative funding available, for instance LTP funding could be used for the Wallisdown corridor. The bid had to focus on what was deliverable within the programme’s strict three-year timescale. Previous work on the Poole Bus Station project meant that it was more ready to go than other projects.
• What additional measures was the Council looking at alongside the TCF funding to ensure that modal shift was fully realised? It was explained that the Council was working with its partners, including the bus companies, to discuss ways in which the Council could support them to be more efficient, and to provide incentives for change. This included ways in which to support the use of electric buses and cars, bicycles and mobility scooters. The Council was also due to undertake a review of car parking across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. 

RESOLVED that Cabinet be asked to reconsider the ‘low ask’ alternatives to ensure that the final ask genuinely contains the projects which will lead to the most effective modal shift for the conurbation.

Voting: For - 9, Against – 0, Abstentions – 5