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 Friday 13 March 2026 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Wednesday 18 March 2026 [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Thursday 5 March 2026 [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
The following public questions and statements were received:
Question from Mr Alex McKinstry on Agenda Item 6 – External Audit – Auditor’s Annual report 2024/25 final and Agenda item 14 – Forward plan
The external auditor's report includes an improvement recommendation concerning governance: that an action plan be devised to address the eighteen recommendations arising from the FuturePlaces investigation. I'm surprised, therefore, to find no FuturePlaces-related meetings included in tonight's forward plan.
Can the Chair give an assurance that at least one such meeting will take place; and will the following matters also be up for debate at that meeting:
(1) Any responses to the letters sent to FuturePlaces stakeholders in December;
(2) The replies to the numerous concerns raised by Committee members in meetings? (These have been provided as annotations to the action sheets since 27 November - but the Committee doesn't seem to be aware of this; and as the action sheets aren't classed as "items of business", public statements on these responses haven't been submissible.)
Finally, will the aforementioned correspondence with FuturePlaces stakeholders be published?
Response:
At least one further meeting is likely to take place on Future Places. The timing of this meeting will be discussed with the Committee when appropriate. The form and content of the material presented will depend to some extent on responses received from Future Places stakeholders. The meeting will allow for discussion of the final report ahead of making recommendations to Full Council. The intent of the Future Places investigation throughout has been to publish as widely as reasonably possible, subject to the normal constraints.
Questions from Mr Ian Redman on Agenda Item 8 – Procurement & Contract Management Strategy Delivery Plan:
(1) Has the Council considered the practical burden its procurement processes place on small local businesses?
The Invitation to Tender for a recent Mudeford concession was 42 pages long, which a bidder must read simply to understand how to submit a bid.
A small trader wishing to operate a single refreshment van was then required to complete four separate submissions: the Procurement Specific Questionnaire, Form of Tender, Pricing submission and a detailed Quality submission. The Quality section alone required extensive written responses on areas such as business planning, staffing, marketing, sustainability and experience, potentially running to dozens of pages.
For a small local operator without dedicated bid-writing staff, this represents many hours, often days, of unpaid work just to submit a bid.
Does the Council recognise that such processes create a real barrier to small local businesses, and what specific steps has it taken to simplify procurement and reduce unnecessary paperwork?
Response:
The Council does consider the practical burden its procurement processes place on small local businesses, indeed Procurement Act 2023 is geared to be supplier friendly as far as reasonably practicable whilst maintaining transparency, equal treatment and fairness alongside value for money, integrity, and public benefit. With reference to the procurement of concessions at BCP, the Council has reviewed and clarified procedures and communicated internally that Mobile Traders are out of scope of rules relating to the procurement of ‘concessions’. Mobile Traders are subject to pitch fees however such fees are calculated. Services should lead on the sourcing of mobile trading operators. Services will of course maintain focus on transparency, equal treatment and fairness alongside value for money, integrity, and public benefit.
For the avoidance of doubt, ‘Mobile Traders’ is taken to mean third parties who utilise BCP's ground for their operational footprint in combination with their own privately owned assets (i.e. they install their equipment within a designated ground pitch [be it on a high street / car park, or a patch of grass in a park, sand on a beach and so on] and they sell product). This includes:
(2) In November I asked to provide coffee at the Kings Park parkrun over the Christmas period — a time-limited four-week trial. The proposal was small in scale (around three hours on Saturday mornings), non-exclusive, and included a commitment to donate 10% of sales toward funding a bench in the park.
Council officers stated that the proposal could not proceed because it would need to be offered out to other traders, and Procurement was later cited as supporting that position. However, the proposal was only for a very short, low-value trial.
If this interpretation is correct, it could affect many small businesses and may prevent innovative ideas or small-scale trials that help grow the local economy.
What specific regulation, policy, or legal requirement prevented officers from approving a short trial of this kind?
Response:
There is no specific regulation, policy, or legal requirement that prevented officers from approving a short trial of this kind.
Statements from Mr Philip Gatrell on Agenda Item 6 – External Audit – Auditor’s Annual report 2024/25 final
(1) “2014 ACT”
On 26th February 2026 the external auditor referenced my Statement to this Committee when saying - quote - I “was factually incorrect” the firm “hadn’t considered” my Objection.
I did not state that nor that my Objections had “been ignored”. Nonetheless I perceive tardy resolution.
Regarding the 2014 Act processes and related National Audit Office Code (Code):
• My Objections were submitted within time by 8th August 2025 and accepted 12th September 2025.
• My Questions were submitted within time though by default not answered; warranting explanatory analysis beyond the scope of these 150 permitted words.
• The Code states:
“Where the auditor is not able to decide the objection within six months, they should inform the objector and the authority and provide a further update on progress every three months until the objection is decided.”
My Public Issues on and since 16th October 2025 identify limitations in the 2024/25 external audit. The next two Statements record events and actuality.
(2) 2024/25 EXTERNAL AUDIT CONCLUSION
My preceding Statement identifies basic misunderstandings concerning 2014 Act obligations.
Finalised Statement of Accounts page 132 includes the auditor’s Report wording dated 27th February 2026 stating the audit cannot be formally concluded because - for example - Objections are under “consideration”.
Regarding the preceding Statement:
• The Code is implicit that timely notice is sent in writing direct to registered local government electors regarding progress and Objection resolution, as was the auditor’s 2023/24 practice. There is no onus on Objectors to view Council meetings or impersonal reports online to obtain that information.
• The 1st November 2025 interim and 27th February 2026 final reporting packs include “2024/25 outcome” sections regarding “Use of auditors powers”. The narrative such as “we have not made any written declarations …” could - in a 2014 Act context - be construed as applying to not only auditor Findings but also electors’ Objections.
The latter consideration apart my following Statement records reporting omissions and concerns.
(3) 2024/25 REPORTING OMISSIONS
The Code clarifies that materiality is not exclusively measured in monetary terms, because reportable “significant” matters also have qualitative values as can arise from governance and internal control failures.
Related concerns include draft Accounts note 16 net positive bank balances of £4,794,000 metamorphosis to an overdrawn £21,429,220 as explained in my 15th January 2026 Statement #1. However - contrary to earlier intimations - the final Audit Findings INCONSISTENTLY OMIT this particular “material” revision.
The auditor’s 2014 Act powers are not limited to Public Interest Reports and court declarations and include written recommendations.
Protocols preclude discussion of Public Statements but not an auditor’s remediation statement today regarding SPECIFICALLY the following.
My 15th January 2026 Statement #2 identifies £52,618 banked “Deputyship” funds apparently misspent when the Council’s account was confirmed as overdrawn. Regarding my Objection these trust funds were temporarily treated as “cash” balances pending “investigation”. Final Accounts note 16 is silent on the matter.
Statement from Mr Ian Redman on Agenda Item 8 – Procurement & Contract Management Strategy Delivery Plan*
The Procurement report reads as something produced to fulfil a reporting requirement, rather than to provide meaningful information or assurance to those charged with governance.
The report presents activity rather than evidence of improved procurement governance or outcomes. Key performance measures rely on percentages without supporting base data, which significantly limits their value and prevents effective scrutiny. For example, a reduction in SME contracts from 48% to 46% provides no meaningful insight without the actual number of contracts or explanation of the underlying change.
The report lacks transparency and depth. The 57 commitments are not clearly set out, there is no breakdown by service area, and there is minimal analysis of procurement risk.
Procurement sits at the heart of financial control and good governance. Reports of this standard raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of oversight.