Agenda item

To consider the following regeneration related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 18 March 2020:

·       Wessex Fields Site Development Strategy

·       Arts and Cultural Development in Bournemouth

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet members invited to attend for these items: Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture and Councillor Andy Hadley, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure.

The Cabinet report will be published on Tuesday 10 March 2020 and available to view at the following link: https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=3727&Ver=4

Wessex Fields Site Development Strategy – The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture was not available for questions. The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix B to the Cabinet minutes of 18 March 2020 in the Minute Book. The Portfolio Holder advised that there were both positive and negative themes outlined. The Council were now looking at viable options to take those key themes forward. A number of points were raised by the Board including:

·     A Councillor commented that he was present at one of the events, which was well attended, and he thought it was a great way to reach out to the public. The officers at the public event provided information on the transfer from one plan to another. The focus of the events was not on transportation but on other areas such as environment, affordable housing and the hospital provided plans for a ‘living lab’.

·     Key worker housing and access to the roads. A Councillor commented that 300 key worker homes would require significant infrastructure to access the site. The Portfolio Holder advised that the consultation process was very much around land use. Discussions with the hospital were ongoing about access to the site for staff and ambulances. Access requirements would be part of the future development.

·     A Councillor asked about the Administration’s view of the development following the positive feedback from the survey. The Board was advised that the outcome of the public events showed differing opinions around the access road, there was a need to look at sustainable transport for the whole area, for example a foot and cycle bridge to Christchurch to improve access. The Cabinet’s view had not changed since previously presented.

·     Further issues were raised within the ward concerning traffic and routes around that area and the impact that any development would have. A Councillor commented that more people were in favour of the road transport scheme than against it, 30% vs 25%.

·     A Board member asked how the outcome of the recent consultation compared to the previous consultation. The original issues were from people responding to the planning consent for the previous scheme. The Portfolio Holder advised that an acceptable scheme needed to be drawn up from the outcome of the most recent consultation. With regards to transport the specific measures outlined in the report, Deansleigh access road, was supported by 6 percent and not supported by 12 percent.

·     Further queries were raised regarding a pass around the underpass to access but there was now a need to work up how the desired land use would be supported by a transport scheme, which reflected the views of residents.

·     In response to a question the Board was advised that a ‘living lab’ was a concept from Bournemouth University biological engineering and biological science related to health and social care.

·     In response to a question regarding what was meant by key workers the Portfolio Holder explained that these would be places for rent, which would be affordable to those keeping the care economy going and also to young teachers and other public sector staff.

·     A Councillor commented that more transport items were linked to the negative outcomes from the consultation than the positive outcomes. Feedback from the charts was not in relation to what transport system should be followed through. Transport development was crucial and needed to be looked at along with the various themes. It was important to listen and evaluate all comments in order to come to the best possible solution.

·     The original purpose for the land was employment based. The Board questioned whether anything needed to be changed in terms of adding housing to the development. There would need to be employment use on the land but the funding would not be jeopardized by the proposals.

Chair summarised that whilst the consultation did not talk about the transport scheme this did need to be taken into consideration as part of the scheme. Therefore, it was difficult for the Board to make any further comment other than the Board was broadly in support of the recommendation but with the caveat that it hasn’t seen the transportation aspect of the scheme in order to provide an entire picture.

Arts and Culture Development in BCP Council - In the absence of the Portfolio Holder the Corporate Director for Regeneration and Economy presented the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘C’ to the Cabinet minutes of 18 March 2020 in the Minute Book. The Board was advised that the conference outlined in the report would be postponed due to Corona Virus measures. Small increase in budget agreed for additional officers to support the arts agenda. Arts Council acknowledged that budgets are being protected. In the ensuing discussion the points raised by the Board included:

·     Whether this was the right project to be taking forward at the current time, in light of the conference being postponed and what may take place over the next six months. It was noted that the Council would be looking overall at recruitment and related issues in the coming months.

·     A question was asked about whether the position of Chairman of the Cultural Collective would be a remunerated position. It was noted that this was due be discussed at the conference will it be remunerated. The Leader commented that this had been discussed and if it was someone who was paid this would come out of the Cultural Collective£150k budget. The overall value in having a paid Chairman needed to be considered. There would be a paid member of staff to facilitate and support the Board. Discussions had looked at whether to advertise nationally for someone with a high public profile – who would be unlikely to provide time for free. The decision on how it would be taken forward would be taken in conjunction with arts council and other groups. There were some concerns raised as to how much of the funding would be used for officers.

·     A Councillor commented that they were impressed with the take up for the conference and it was disappointing that it had to be postponed. Pausing FDEs, long established events group. Working through temporary events notices – link on Council for community groups to contact regarding liability, arrangements – reach out to groups to help liaise on community events. The members of staff that part of the £150k would pay for would support development of community arts and culture. However, it was noted with Covid-19 issues places like the Light House may require further support.  It was acknowledged that arts and culture in the community was vital. In terms of support for community events the Safety Advisory Group within the tourism and events team were able to assist in the running of events and concerns with safety issues.

·     Anti-Social Behaviour – A Councillor asked how the invested money has affected ASB and how things have improved. Delivery plans included clear measures of success and a paper in April would include a framework of how performance measures will be set. The Leader agreed that it would be reasonable to report back in a years’ time, to provide evidence that the proposed funding represented good value for money.

·     It was acknowledged that there was often a struggle to engage disadvantaged communities in arts and culture, which needed to be inclusive to reap rewards. There was an aim to ensure that everyone is engaged not just those who would be normally. There was a concern that the cultural enquiry didn’t have all the people you may expect and there were a lot of people for whom this wouldn’t feel inclusive. It needed to include a broad range of culture.

·     The Board discussed the role libraries played in cultural services. A Councillor commented that literature is culture, huge literary legacy in the area. Literature and libraries should be part of the cultural collective.

·     It was noted that a three-year standstill settlement for organisations such as the Light House had been agreed which would help in future planning for organisations. They were tied to service level agreements which would tie up the services delivered into the funding provided.

The Vice-Chairman highlighted the impact of current situation for the Light House, which was an important cultural asset for the area. It was discussed that funds were to be given on the understanding that they would be able to continue events through other means as they were reliant on grant funding through Council.

RESOLVED: That an update report be provided to the Board in 12 months’ time, to provide an overview of how effective the strategy has been in meeting its aims; and for this report to include as measures of effectiveness an assessment of how the strategy has assisted in tackling anti-social behaviour and in engaging with harder to reach groups in our communities.