Agenda item

Please refer to the recommendations detailed below

 

6a - Cabinet 27 May 2020 - Minute no 173 – Bournemouth Town Centre Vision (TCV): Winter Gardens Site – Regeneration Opportunities

 

The Chairman reminded Councillors that the recommendations on the above were deferred from the Council meeting on 9 June 2020 to enable consideration of the risk assessment. He reported that Councillors had received a supplementary report relating to the Project Risk Register.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture presented the report on the above strategy and proposed approval as set out on the agenda together with the supplementary report on the project risk register. He outlined the detail of the scheme, financial implications of the project and the funding arrangements.  He explained that the Leader of the opposition and Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Board had been offered a briefing, but this was not required, and responses had been provided to questions from Councillors.  The Portfolio Holder highlighted one outstanding question from a Councillor asking why consideration of joint venture partner Morgan Sindall’s financial status was not considered in the risk register.  He explained that officers had advised that the financial position of the Council’s partners was considered as part of a strategic risk assessment within a different Council process.  The Portfolio Holder in commenting on the scheme highlighted the benefit for the Town Centre and the need to look at space standards for schemes going forward.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 27 May 2020 and the supplementary report relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Agreed

Item 6b - Cabinet 24 June 2020 - Minute no 182 – Organisational Design – Implementation & Budget

 

The Chairman reported thatCouncillor Diana Butler had submitted a question on the Poole Civic Centre and in accordance with the Constitution it was proposed that this question be dealt with prior to consideration of the recommendations.

 

Question from Councillor Diana Butler

 

Poole Civic Centre is a beautiful listed Art Deco building which is part of Poole’s historic identity. Why is it proposed to sell this unique asset, whilst there are many ways to enhance it’s use as a Civic building and increase financial income through room and office hire?

 

Response from Councillor Vikki Slade (Leader of the Council)

 

Information provided to Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny clearly illustrates the need for a significant rationalisation of our property portfolio of the Council. This rationalisation and reduction of operating costs was a clear driver of the Local Government Reorganisation proposal and business case, and it is inevitable that there will be some high profile and difficult decisions as we move through this process.

 

With the earlier adoption of the Bournemouth Town Hall Campus as the site for the BCP Council Civic Centre and principal administrative “Hub”, a decision based on a wide variety of criteria including the buildings capacity, cost, environmental constraints and geographic issues, we will need to develop and consider alternative uses for the buildings that are released. In the case of Poole Civic Centre, this work will need to take into account its unique characteristics including the listing of part of the site and the potential, along with the accompanying cost/benefit appraisal, the continued use of all/part of it for heritage or civic purposes.

 

Councillor Butler asked that added to the civic use of the Poole Civic Centre had consideration been given to the massive opportunities that exist to earn income through hiring out rooms for weddings, conferences, training events and long term business office use in view of difficulties for businesses as the internal structure of the modern part of the building could be changed for that purpose with minimal cost.

 

The Leader of the Council thanked Councillor Butler for her suggestions and explained that a piece of work had already been undertaken on the accommodation strategy which will continue on other options for redevelopment around the site including for housing and other uses.  She explained that there was a considerable amount of office space available in the Town Centre with better connectivity which was currently empty and the Council had not received any indication that this site was particularly of value for that purpose until such time as the work was complete all options remain on the table.

The Leader of the Council presented the report on the above and proposed approval as set out on the agenda.  She explained that the paper before the Council followed the new operating model agreed last year based on a range of principles set out in a two-day piece of work with senior managers including finding market support for the transformation model.  The Leader of the Council reported that Local Government Reorganisation had been predicated on making significant transformational savings within the Council not just by bringing the Councils together but transforming them into a modern, accessible and accountable Council.  Councillors were reminded that the budget attached to the project was £30m which would expect to deliver up to £45m of benefits work, see improvements over a 3-4 year period and the Council would instruct a business partner to develop much of the work. The Council was advised of the premarket interest in the Council’s plans and that the Council could be far more ambitious than the proposed £45m savings.  Councillors were informed that the report before the Council required a higher price tag but comes with a bigger expectation with minimum savings of £47m. 

 

The Leader reported that there had been significant changes in transformation work due to Covid 19 and that the Council could probably go faster than the 3-4 years to change the way it works moving out of civic buildings into community hubs and working remotely.   She outlined the finances for the project and that prudential borrowing may no longer need to be used. The Leader of the Council referred to the timeline and the workstreams.  She explained that a member group would be established in September working alongside an Officer Board on the workstreams.  Councillors were informed that now the Bournemouth Town Hall had been adopted as the civic centre it was not proposed to undertake the major refurbishment project of up to £29m doing a lighter touch piece of refurbishment work and a further report would be submitted later in the year.  The Portfolio Holder for Finance outlined the change in the financial position of the project. 

 

The Opposition Group Leader commented on the lack of ambition of the report and challenged how the project was being funded.  He also commented on the removal of the transformation item from the Cabinet Forward. He reported that having made the above comments the Council needed to move away from service cuts and provide a clear message to officers and partners to support the project.

 

Councillors in discussing the project referred to a number of issues including the need for further work on space utilisation, the language used in the Equality Impact needs assessment and the requirements of the Equality Act and the need to ensure that there was appropriate accessibility to all civic buildings.

 

The Leader of the Council responded to some of the issues raised during the debate. She welcomed the Opposition Group Leader’s support for the project and reported that the proposal to spend up to £29m on the Town Hall had been supported across the Council which did include the then Group Leader and Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Board.  The Leader of the Council clarified that the transformation item had not been removed from the Cabinet forward plan, explained that the spatial resource was continually being reviewed and that the equality needs assessment had looked closely at the needs of different protected characteristics in order to make the necessary changes.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 June 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Agreed

 

Councillor Diana Butler voted against the proposals.

 

Item 6c - Cabinet 24 June 2020 - Minute no 183 – Bistro on the Beach

 

The Portfolio Holder for Tourism, Leisure and Communities presented the report on the above and proposed approval as set out on the agenda. He outlined the detail of the project.

 

A Portfolio Holder indicated that he was pleased to see lift access to the beach as part of the development.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 June 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Agreed

 

Councillor Diana Butler voted against the proposal.

 

Item 6d - Cabinet 24 June 2020 - Minute no 187 – Convert Bournemouth Learning Centre building into a school

 

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s and Families presented the report on the above and proposed approval as set out on the agenda.  She outlined the detail of the project which would provide a special school to be run as a satelite to a local external provider.  This report had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Board, approved by Cabinet and Council approval was now required for the disposal of the lease. The Portfolio Holder reported that increasing local specialist provision would meet increased demand and reduce the pressure on the high needs block fund and the transport budget.  A six-week formal consultation was required by the DFE and the Portfolio Holder outlined the timetable for the project.  The Portfolio Holder reported on the relocation of staff and other partners and explained that she had met with Ward and other Councillors and that issues and questions raised would be included in the public consultation. 

 

A Ward Councillor expressed his concerns that initially he and his ward colleague had not been consulted on the proposals but thanked the Portfolio Holder and Service Director who quickly rectified that error.  He commented on the potential impact of the scheme and the necessary consultation.  Councillors welcomed the project.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 June 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Unanimous

 

Item 6e - Cabinet 24 June 2020 - Minute no 188 – Templeman House, Leedham Road, Bournemouth

 

The Portfolio Holder for Housing presented the report on the above and proposed approval as set out on the agenda. He outlined the detail of the scheme and the funding arrangements. 

 

The Portfolio Holder advised Councillors of an error in the report and confirmed that there would be a

gate which would have two-way secured access.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 June 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Agreed

 

Councillor Jackie Edwards abstained from the above decision.

 

Item 6f - Cabinet 24 June 2020 - Minute no 189 – Housing Scheme at Moorside Road, Bournemouth

 

The Portfolio Holder for Housing presented the report on the above and proposed approval as set out on the agenda. He reported that the ward in the report should refer to Kinson and not Kinson South.  The Portfolio Holder outlined the housing scheme and referred to the statements received which had raised three main concerns on flooding, pilling and the financing of the scheme. He outlined the proposals for dealing with surface water and the use of sustainable urban draining systems and highlighted that the amount of surface water would be no greater than before the development to meet the requirements of the Local Plan.  Councillors were advised that a pilling engineer would be appointed to provide detailed design and undertake a full assessment. The Portfolio Holder referred to the ecological aspects of the scheme and explained that a specialist ecologist would be working on the site and issues on ecology consulted upon.  Councillors were advised of the financing of the scheme which included using Right to Buy receipts and the standards of the proposed development. 

 

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change reported that she appreciated the correspondence from Friends of the Earth and local residents on the scheme. She explained that these aspects had been looked at in depth and been through the Planning Committee. She acknowledged the difficulties for residents when such a large change was proposed and had looked into the issues raised.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change explained that the SSSI designation in itself does not mean that it needs a 400-metre buffer. She reported that an SSSI needs international designations for that 400 m buffer feature to be relevant these are the special protection area, the special area of conservation and Ramsar designations. Councillors were informed that the Fernheath SSSI does not have the international designations and therefore does not require the 400 m buffer. The Portfolio Holder reported that she had requested details of the management of protected species on the site and reported if the scheme was approved she was satisfied that the Council and its partners were fulfilling their duties following the policies in place when planning permission was granted and complying with national guidance.  She also commented on the opportunities through the Local Plan and the Climate Emergency which had been declared to create action and develop policies to increase biodiversity.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance highlighted the opportunity that would be provided for local families in supporting the scheme.

 

A Councillor reported that he had been lobbied by local residents in the area and requested that findings of the ecological studies were made public. 

 

Members commented on the scheme and confirmed that all issues including the 400 m buffer had been taken into account when considered by the preceding authority.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 June 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting: Agreed

 

Councillor Diana Butler voted against the above decision.

Councillors Duane Farr, Laurence Fear and Chris Rigby abstained from the above decision.

 

RESOLVED that under Section 100 (A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs such interest in disclosing the information.

 

Item 6g - Cabinet 24 June 2020 - Minute no 195 – Disposal of land at Southbourne Crossroads

 

This item was restricted by virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

The Leader of the Council presented the recommendations.  Councillors were advised that Southbourne Crossroads had been declared surplus and was marketed for sale, and that the recommendations sought agreement of the sale price.  A Ward Councillor commented on the need for consultation.

 

The recommendations arising from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 June 2020 relating to the above were approved.

 

Voting – Agreed

 

Councillors Stephen Bartlett and Diana Butler voted against the above decision.

 

Councillors Julie Bagwell, Daniel Butt, Eddie Coope, Malcolm Davies, Felicity Rice and Ann Stribley abstained from the above decision

 

Councillors then agreed to move into public session.