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 10 July 2026 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Wednesday 15 July 2026 [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Thursday 2 July 2026 [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
Questions from Mr Alexander McKinstry:
Question 1
Page 7, paragraph 8 of tonight's agenda pack notes that on 3 December 2025, this Committee resolved to send a series of written questions to FuturePlaces "stakeholders" in the week ending 12 December 2025, seeking responses by mid-January 2026. The following then appears in italics: "These dates were extended slightly in reality." Just out of interest, why were the dates extended, and what new dates were substituted?
Response:
Due to personal reasons, the Chair was unable to prepare and collate the stakeholder questions until early February 2026. Following consideration of appropriate wording of questions and ascertaining email addresses where possible, the questions were sent to stakeholders in April 2026. Some stakeholders were sent chasing emails in June 2026.
Question 2:
Can you provide a list of all stakeholders contacted for further information or clarification following the 3 December 2025 meeting, and clarify which stakeholders did not reply, or replied stating that they were unable or unwilling to assist with these enquiries? (I accept there was no obligation for any stakeholder to reply.) In addition, did former chair of FuturePlaces Philip Broadhead ever respond to the Chair's email sent sometime prior to 24 September 2025 (https://www.youtube.com/live/8-pK-1mJ_BQ?is=A0ydpeOm-gjRGVVr&t=45m4s), seeking his views on the scope of the investigation; and is there any likelihood of the abovementioned correspondence - questions and answers - being published, perhaps as a supplement if the FuturePlaces report ends up going to full Council?
Response:
Responses were sought from a range of former members, officers and Future Places representatives. Some former officers were unable to be contacted due to private data-sharing considerations. Some other stakeholders responded substantively, some declined to participate and some did not respond at all. The points raised in the responses have informed the Chair’s Foreword Statement.
The responses themselves are not being published because they contain material raising confidentiality, privacy and legal considerations. Some respondents specified the responses were in strictest confidence and they have replied to the Chair on this basis. Instead, relevant themes and perspectives have been reflected within the Chair’s Foreword.
The Chair did not receive a response from the email sent to former councillor Philip Broadhead to the email sent in August 2025.
Question 3
Revisiting the FuturePlaces report, I note that the then-Chief Executive, Graham Farrant, was asked about the recruitment of FuturePlaces' strategic engagement director, who was rumoured to know Drew Mellor - this is at 3 1 29 of the report - yet no questions seem to have been put to him about the recruitment of the managing director, a far more controversial matter in which he, Mr Farrant, was directly involved. This despite the fact that the "make it safe for scrutiny" email was disclosed in an FOI response of 16 May 2025; and that I read out said email at a meeting of this Committee, with the Head of Audit and Graham Farrant both present, on 29 May 2025. Graham Farrant did not retire until August 2025. Why was he asked about the recruitment of the strategic engagement director, but not the appointment of the managing director?
Response:
The then-Chief Executive was asked about the recruitment and appointment of the managing director and replies and comments are incorporated into the investigation report in section 3.1.
Questions from Mr Ian Redman:
Question 1:
The Cabinet reports of October 2021 and June 2022 described a comprehensive governance framework for FuturePlaces, including Commissioning Team oversight, Gateway approvals, shareholder controls, regular financial monitoring and audit assurance. The findings of this investigation suggest that the reality differed significantly from those arrangements. At what point did senior officers become aware that the governance framework approved by Cabinet was not operating as intended, who was responsible for ensuring those arrangements were implemented, and why was Cabinet not advised that the approved governance model was not being followed before substantial public funds had been committed?
Response:
The preamble to this question gives the questioner’s own summary and not the conclusion of the report. The report and associated evidence shows that the situation was more complex and, in fact, an evolving one, as Future Places was being established.
There were many references in the Cabinet papers and other governance documents setting out that the arrangements were expected to evolve as Future Places was established. Indeed, the BCP Council funding model for Future Places changed in July 2022.
Further, this expectation of evolving arrangements was referred to in the Audit & Governance Committee meeting of 10th March 2022. The following excerpt from the minutes states:
“There was a recognition that ‘FuturePlaces’ was still in its early stages of development particularly within the area of the Business Planning process and in the realm of establishing robust governance arrangements and that, as work progressed, the Committee would therefore be likely to require some greater clarity in some areas.”
“In conclusion, the Chairman of the Committee referred to the Committee’s ambition to understand the arrangements for governance being established as ‘FuturePlaces’ evolved and to test those governance arrangements as the Company became fully operational and thereafter on an ongoing basis.”
Section 3.2 of the investigation report responded to the scope question posed namely, “Consider the adequacy of the governance arrangements put in place by the Council for the operation of BCP Futureplaces Ltd”.
This section of the report identifies some governance weaknesses such as the failure to agree certain governance documents and the view of the commissioning team representative that the scope for initially agreed schemes were being extended or changed but not via the officer team. The report goes on to identify when these issues were escalated and who with.
The shareholder representative and the Commissioning Team on the Council client side, and the Managing Director and FPL Board on the company side, was responsible for ensuring the governance arrangements were implemented. Other than the mechanisms referred to above, the investigation did not identify any formal escalation to Cabinet.
It is worth noting that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council were Board members of Future Places, and the Deputy Leader was Chair up until the point that Lord Kerslake became Chair in October 2022.
Question 2:
The FuturePlaces investigation concluded that there were significant weaknesses in governance, financial oversight, procurement and shareholder assurance. Looking back, what specific actions, within their respective statutory and professional responsibilities, should the Chief Executive, Section 151 Officer, Monitoring Officer and Head of Internal Audit reasonably have been expected to take to prevent or significantly reduce the losses? In each case, how does that compare with what was actually done at the time, and what changes have since been implemented to ensure those responsibilities are discharged more effectively in future?
Response:
The questioner’s opening contextual summary is noted as his personal conclusions, they are not the conclusions drawn by the investigation report. It is not the case, for example, that the investigation concluded that there were significant weaknesses in financial oversight.
There are a few areas where Committee members have expressed a view that different actions should or could have been taken by officers. For example, the Committee expressed a view that the recruitment process for the Future Places Managing Director should have been an open and rigorous one. However, what specific actions should have been taken by officers at the time is a subjective question. The report did not determine that any of the statutory officers had failed to provide appropriate advice and guidance, or that they had not fulfilled their duties. Officers have to adhere to their responsibilities but also must not obstruct the will of an elected administration. If the processes are open to interpretation, officers’ ability to challenge is limited.
The outcome of this investigation is to make specific recommendations to Council that the Committee believes will strengthen Council processes and procedures for the future.
Regarding the reference to reducing “losses”, it is not clear what losses are referred to. The value to BCP Council of the work produced by Future Places is not something statutory officers had a direct ability to control.
Question 3:
At the Audit & Governance Committee meeting on 10 March 2022, the Head of Audit & Management Assurance advised that BCP FuturePlaces had been incorporated into Internal Audit's audit programme. He explained that Internal Audit was developing a "trusted adviser relationship" that was "not just about retrospective look back", but would proactively support officers on matters where they "might not be conversant with what's required", including "things like financial regs". He further advised the Committee that there were no issues requiring its attention.
Given the investigation's findings of significant weaknesses in governance, financial oversight, procurement and shareholder assurance, what assurance and advisory work had Internal Audit actually undertaken by March 2022, how active was this "trusted adviser relationship" throughout the lifetime of FuturePlaces, and why were those issues not identified or reported to the Committee at that time?
Response:
The questioner’s summary of the investigation’s findings are his own and are not the conclusions drawn from the investigation’s report. The quotes provided from the Audit & Governance Committee meeting of 10 March 2022 are also not entirely accurate.
It is also relevant to state the minutes of the conclusion of that meeting in full:
In conclusion, the Chairman of the Committee referred to the Committee’s ambition to understand the arrangements for governance being established as ‘FuturePlaces’ evolved and to test those governance arrangements as the Company became fully operational and thereafter on an ongoing basis.
It was agreed that, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee, a document be prepared by ‘FuturePlaces’ taking account of the issues raised at the meeting in order to enable issues and concerns to be addressed by the Committee over time and, if necessary, identify areas where further clarity might be required. This would also be an opportunity to create a record of what had been covered as a baseline for future monitoring and allow the Company to work through and develop its governance arrangements.
The minutes of the subsequent meeting on 17 March 2022 states:
It was also noted that follow-up action identified by the Committee at its previous meeting relating to ‘BCP FuturePlaces’ was underway with, initially, the outcome of an update on that work going to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee. The Chairman confirmed that if there were any further issues arising from the update which required further report to the Committee, an item would be added to the agenda for a future meeting as appropriate.”
The investigation report, at section 6.4, responds to the scope question “Consider the adequacy of the role of the Council’s Internal Audit team”. This section of the report details the work undertaken and the reporting to the A&G Committee.
Statements from Mr Ian Redman:
Statement 1:
Cabinet approved the establishment of FuturePlaces on the basis of a detailed governance framework, including shareholder oversight, Commissioning Team scrutiny, Gateway approvals, financial monitoring and regular assurance. On the basis of the public record, Members were entitled to expect those arrangements would be implemented. However, the subsequent investigation concluded that significant elements of the approved framework were either ineffective or not operating in practice. The report does not establish when the arrangements operating in practice diverged from those approved by Cabinet, who first became aware of that divergence, who was responsible for ensuring the approved arrangements were implemented, or why Members were not informed before further public funds and liabilities were committed. Without establishing that chronology and accountability, Members cannot be assured that Cabinet decisions are implemented as approved or that similar governance failures will be identified and escalated before substantial public funds are placed at risk.
Statement 2:
The investigation acknowledges that BCP Council cannot locate the Procurement Decision Record (PDR) for the £18,500 Smart Growth Associates purchase order and accepts that this may represent a breach of Financial Regulations. However, the obvious follow-up enquiries appear limited. In a normal local authority control environment, procurement approvals, invoice authorisations, finance system audit trails, emails and evidence that work was completed would ordinarily provide an audit trail, even where one document is missing. Yet the investigation also concluded it could not establish how or why Smart Growth Associates were selected, despite Gail Mayhew's documented participation in a recorded Holes Bay regeneration meeting in January 2021 attended by Graham Farrant and Adam Richens. The Chair's Foreword also acknowledges that members of the public, through Freedom of Information requests, identified relevant evidence that supported the Committee's work. Taken together, these omissions suggest that further relevant Council records may remain unidentified.
Statements from Mr McKinstry:
Statement 1:
The FuturePlaces report should have been commissioned at least two years ago. I was bitterly disappointed when Vikki Slade told this Committee, 11 January 2024, "We did have a discussion ... about whether to hold a formal investigation ... [But] what purpose would it have served?" At that point, two figures were still in public office who could have facilitated that investigation immeasurably. There may have been good reasons, for instance, why Graham Farrant approved of Drew Mellor sitting on a three-strong interview panel, having already promised the job to the sole candidate. Others have resisted or downplayed this investigation - "Good money after bad," "No smoking gun here," "90% of lessons have been learned" - so I'd like to thank those members who consistently supported it. The result is a 190-page report with 18 governance recommendations, so it turns out there was something to see here after all.
Statement 2
Regarding the Chair's foreword: I couldn't have bettered it, and my only gripe relates to paragraph 53 and the appointment of the managing director. While the monitoring officer did not formally intervene in that process, that alone doesn't convince me that the process was "not unlawful" and it's regrettable that a legal opinion hasn't been provided on this matter, despite being requested by Cllr Phipps at the 24 September 2025 meeting. Absent any legal opinion, I wonder if the Committee might consider approaching Dorset Police to establish whether there is a case to progress here - as was done with the "cleaning for votes" affair (see Standards Committee papers, 28 February 2023, item 7). That may sound alarmist, but the appointment process has been publicly described as "predetermined", "fixed", "reverse-engineered", "premeditated" (the BBC), "staggering", and "absolutely dreadful" - so an escalation shouldn't be surprising.
Statement 3
Part 5.5 of the FuturePlaces report describes Drew Mellor's involvement in the decision to source office space for the URC; the subsequent letting of premises in Exeter Park Road, whose de facto landlord was acquainted with Cllr Mellor; and Drew Mellor's acquisition of the rent-collecting company nine months down the line. The Chair notes (paragraph 108) that the investigation has not explored the relationships between Drew Mellor, the landlord, and the respective companies, nor any negotiations between them, and this is a striking omission, given the large number of public concerns raised about this matter which you can see in red ink on pages 177 and 178. All I'll say is that it's a shame that this part of the investigation was scoped so narrowly, as it stands out against the rest of the report, which is otherwise unsparing in its research and sedulous in its analysis.