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 midday on Thursday 18 September 2025 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Tuesday 23 September 2025 [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Wednesday 10 September 2025 [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
The following questions were received from Mr Alex McKinstry in relation to Agenda Item 6:
Question 1.
Using pdf pagination, pages 50-51 describe how a friendship was alleged to exist between Drew Mellor and the FuturePlaces strategic engagement director, both of whom are involved in a local rugby club; but at paragraph 3 1 28, "a former employee of FPL" is quoted, who states it was the chairing of the Poole BID by the person concerned that was thought to have impressed the FuturePlaces MD. For absolute clarity, was that "former employee of FPL" the strategic engagement director himself, or one of the executive directors of the company (and if so, which)? Can you also confirm whether the ex-MD of FuturePlaces has actually been asked why she recommended this person for the post of strategic engagement director in her email of 9 July 2021?
Response from the Chair:
The former employee of FPL mentioned in the report was not the strategic engagement director or either of the executive directors. The ex-MD has not been asked any questions in this part of the investigation - including why she appointed the strategic engagement director.
It will be for the A&G committee to determine next steps, including whether any individual is asked for specific comments or is asked to respond to a specific question.
Question 2.
When assessing the value of work to be transferred to BCP Council - for which, see pages 75-76 - did the fact that a significant amount of that work remained in draft have any effect on its value or its categorisation? (We know for instance that much of the Wessex Fields work remained in draft, as stated at the Overview and Scrutiny Board of 26 February 2024; while an FOI has shown that of the 27 reports commissioned for the Holes Bay site, 21 remained in draft, including an estate management plan and flood risk assessments.) Has any opinion been reached, moreover, as to why so much of FuturePlaces' work was being kept in draft form?
Response from the Chair:
It seems simply the case that for contributing work, plans, assessments and so on to an Outline Business case (OBC) or final report presented to the Council, then these were marked draft by FPL.
In assessing the value of work to be purchased by the Council in the lead up to the closure of FPL all work was simply categorised as work in progress and each piece of work, plan or assessment was considered on a case by case basis as of use to the Council.
Question 3.
Have the following documents, mentioned in tonight's report, been made available to the Committee (given that they're not included in the Part E appendices):
(Paragraph 3 1 6) MD & Head of HR emails discussing "offer" expectations, 11 June 2021;
(3 1 7 and 3 1 8) Emails concerning MD recruitment;
(3 1 17) MD suggesting individuals for the COO and strategic engagement director roles, 9 July 2021;
(3 2 11) Latest position re outstanding governance documents.
Can you also confirm what exactly is being quoted from in paragraph 3 2 11 (it seems to be a Council email); and provide dates for the emails reproduced in paragraph 3 1 22 (where the MD quotes Graham Farrant's view that key roles must be "openly recruited") and the lower part of page 105 (legal advice)?
Response from the Chair:
Several hundred emails and numerous documents have been considered during the investigation. The investigator has considered it not practical to attach every email or document mentioned in the report and has exercise judgement.
The Committee has not seen the emails or documents mentioned in this public question.
At 3.2.11 a briefing note is quoted which was sent from an officer within the Council’s commissioning team, to the Chief Executive, as shareholder representative, the briefing note was sent on 19/3/23.
The date for the email quoted at 3.1.22, Graham Farrant’s view that the key roles must be openly recruited, was 6/9/2021
The date for email quoting legal advice was 2 June 2021
Please note these dates have been added to report and will appear in the final version.
[NB - re Question 2: the FOI listing the 27 Holes Bay reports, including those in draft, is this one:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/holes_bay_masterplan#incoming-2802199
Re Question 3 - two of the emails referred to in paragraphs 3 1 7 and 3 1 8 were disclosed, albeit redacted, in the following FOI response. This includes the email of 30 June 2021 sketching out the interview questions - see towards the bottom, under "Show all attachments":
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/general_decision_making_process#incoming-3018958
Statements received from Alex McKinstrty in relation to Agenda Item 6:
Statement 1.
I'm appalled at the events chronicled in 3.1 of tonight's report: senior officers reverse-engineering an appointment to a £150,000 a year publicly-funded role. Especially shocking was the appointing of Drew Mellor to the interview panel as a decision-maker, given that the officer arranging that panel knew of the alleged offer Drew Mellor had made to the candidate: as stated in their email to the Chief Executive of 14 June 2021. (This is crucial, as the decision to appoint was split 2-1.) I note too that, eight days after the interview, the candidate was nominating individuals for the COO and Strategic Engagement Director roles - "[I] would like to discuss how we get these in place asap" - and they were indeed recruited after very limited advertising. The Committee might seek advice on whether these appointment processes were actually lawful.
Statement 2.
The 2022 business update "proposed that FuturePlaces adopts the Stewardship Kitemark" - this kitemark being the work of The Stewardship Initiative, of which the FuturePlaces MD is co-founder. (See paragraph 4 1 12.) I'm alarmed that £20,125 was paid to Knight Frank for "a commercial review of [the] Stewardship Model", especially as a second co-founder of the Initiative was a senior partner in Knight Frank. The third co-founder was a senior executive at The Prince's Foundation - which received £77,499 from FuturePlaces, according to the consultancy fees drilldown in 4 1 6. Knight Frank, meanwhile, received sums totalling £109,126. It may well be that The Stewardship Initiative didn't benefit from Knight Frank's review, that the latter was scrupulously impartial, and any overlapping interests were declared; but I feel the Committee needs to look into this.
Statements received from Ian Redman in relation to Agena Item 6 (read out by Mr Alex McKinstrty)
Statement 1
"FuturePlaces" turned out to be a total misnomer. £7,205,442 was spent on a company whose worthwhile output consisted of reports worth £1,713,420, which for some reason the Council paid £2,691,704 for, plus VAT. Adding up the salary and bonus payments, moreover - and the £95,110 paid to her or her company as consultant / subcontractor - the managing director made £424,409 out of the company before tax; the chief operations officer, £395,939. The amount paid to consultants was £3,146,410 which is staggering considering only five of the company's projects reached the outline business case stage. I eagerly await Part 2 of the report, including details of how much rent was paid to Hinton Road Investment Limited after Drew Mellor became sole director of that company.
Statement 2
If the Committee decides further investigations are necessary, the obvious matters are the events following the Head of HR's email to Graham Farrant (14 June 2021), where, to quote the report, "the Council would appear to have been reactively acting to the Leader's apparent 'offer of employment' and the individual's expectations in terms of salary". The role was not advertised, no other candidate interviewed, and incredibly, the Head of HR put Drew Mellor on the interview panel despite knowing about the aforesaid "offer of employment". (Graham Farrant attended the interview; he also knew.) Once appointed, the MD suggested candidates for the other two senior posts and these were only advertised superficially. This was no way to recruit world-beating talent and it's regrettable that tonight's meeting was deferred until after Graham Farrant's retirement, as in these matters he has some very serious questions to answer.
Statement 3
Extracts from the Risk Assessment which was part of the Officer Decision Record signed by Graham Farrant, 8th June 2021
“Project risks will be reported through the Gateway process and by regular progress reports. These will be escalated to the Heads of Service or Directors, where appropriate”.
“Poor performance and lack of delivery will impact negatively on the Council’s reputation and this risk will be mitigated by monitoring of the URC activities by a robust client commissioning team”.
Senior council officers knew the risk of failure in June 2021 and appear to have done nothing to prevent millions being squandered.
Post meeting note: following a request from a Committee Member, the clerk checked the questions and statements against those submitted and previously circulated to the Committee and confirmed by email to the Committee that they were accurate to what was read out and complete.