Agenda item

To consider the following regeneration related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 11 November 2020:

·         Lansdowne Programme

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

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Phil Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning and Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability

The Cabinet report is attached for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

Cllr B Dunlop advised that she would not take part in the discussion of any subsequent vote on the next item due to her position as Cabinet Lead Member for Bournemouth Regeneration not taking part in the next item on regeneration

Lansdowne Programme - The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix ‘D’ to the Cabinet minutes of 11 November in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

·       A Board member commented that the difference between this scheme and the scheme inherited from the previous administration was that cars would be allowed through on Holdenhurst Road, to try to mitigate congestion in this area.

·       The Portfolio Holder was asked how confident he was on the deadline being achieved. The Portfolio Holder advised that it was his priority to make decision as quickly as possible and he would not be making any changes which would cause problems with the programme meeting the deadline. However it was identified as a risk within the programme but the Portfolio Holder was confident that it would be achieved within the timeframe available.

·       A Board member raised concerns that the scheme would not be able to meet the originally intended aims and questioned whether there was any scope to get greater flexibility in the time frame in order to allow further thought as to whether through traffic was necessary or if something different could be initiated to create a better outside space. The Chairman commented that the lead in time for road orders and any changes to road networks would take a very long time and a lot of the prep work had already been done which would make further changes to the scheme difficult

·       With reference to the recommendation D within the report on equalities a Board member asked for confirmation that there would have been appropriate consultation on shared spaces and assurance that issues concerning shared spaces would be considered. The Portfolio Holder advised that he would liaise closely with the lead member for equalities on these issues. Traffic measures would curb traffic, and this would be part of the process but that he would certainly promote the issue raised.

·       A Board member raised concerns about the options outlined in the report and that the previous administration’s preferred option was not included with the report, noting that the purpose of the paper was for Cabinet to take a decision and not for a political decision to be taken in advance of the paper. The Portfolio Holder advised that he would not normally expect to see the previous administrations option to be included within a report to Cabinet, and that the previous option would cause congestion. The Chief Executive advised that he expected all options to be included within the report and would take this away for consideration in consultation with the Monitoring Officer. The Director of Development undertook to review the paper and include the previously agreed option. (See Action Sheet)

·       A Councillor commented that the scheme should be considered in line with Cotlands Road car park plans. The Portfolio Holder noted that these issues were separate but related. Cotlands was a little further behind but they would be joined together appropriately in order to start to progress a real vision for this area in a more holistic manner.

·       A Board member expressed their disappointment with the way the scheme had ended up and noted that there could have been a scheme which completely changed the way Bournemouth looked. They explained that they would have liked to have seen permanent weekend road closures as an option for residents to use the space for social and leisure purposes.

·       A Councillor raised concerns with the consultation on the programme and requested that the outcome of the consultation be made available prior to the Cabinet meeting and also questioned how the decision could be taken prior to the conclusion of the traffic regulation order consultation. The Board was advised that the report requested delegated authority to the Portfolio Holder and senior officers to take the next steps subject to the Traffic Regulations Orders consultation outcome.

·       A Board member queried why there was no reference to children in terms of equalities, particularly as children will be accessing the new Livingstone Academy. The Portfolio Holder assured the meeting that issues concerning the school would be taken into consideration.

·       The Portfolio Holder was asked if he could ensure that when the development takes place infrastructure is put in place under the roads to allow the roads to be closed off in future. The Portfolio Holder responded that it was certainly something they would look at.

·       In regards to a query regarding the pooling of Neighbourhood CIL money for improvements the Portfolio Holder confirmed that he was keen to work with all members and not just ward colleagues in the future as there were some very positive options available with the distance of the train station from the town centre. However, there wasn’t any funding in place to deliver stage two at present. The Portfolio Holder advised that he had seen details on plans around the bear pit improvements and agreed that he would respond to the Councillor who raised this issue. (See action sheet).

·       The Chairman raised a concern that the drawing provided didn’t actually reflect the proposal outlined in the report and also the risk management didn’t show what the probability was of any particular scenario or outline any mitigation measures.

·       Members raised concerns about the project and public perception on this issue and asked whether the public were aware of what is proposed and stated that whilst he wouldn’t want to see the Council loose out on funding he also wouldn’t want it to deliver something the public does not want.

·       A number of Board members commented that it would have been good to have had some further information within the report on the response to consultation and how people would be impacted. Board members also suggested that a copy of the risk register which was referred to in the report should be made available.

Following the debate on this item the Board RESOVLED that:

1.    Officers be requested to review the cabinet report and amend it accordingly in light of concerns raised by the Board regarding the inclusion of all options for the programme within the report.

Note: The board also raised further concerns regarding the accuracy of Appendix A to the report and that there wasn’t further detail included with the report on the risk register.

2.    The administration be urged to publish the results of the consultation in advance of the Cabinet meeting on November 11 broken down to reveal the views of respondents including business and local stakeholders.

Voting: Nem. Con.