Agenda item

To consider the following Transformation related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 27 October:

·       Estates and Accommodation – Poole Civic Space

·       Organisational Design – Implementation Progress

·       Smart Place Programme – ‘Futures Fund' funding of Gigabit Fibre and Smart Place Resources

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 Drew Mellor, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Transformation

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

Estates and Accommodation – Poole Civic Space

The Leader of the Council with Portfolio for Finance and Transformation presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member of the Board and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Leader and officers addressed a number of points raised by the Board including:

·        Potential for conflict between the coroner and mayoralty in using the building would be managed through a booking system. This had been a key consideration when looking at which functions would complement each other best and had been discussed with both parties.

·       It was hoped that next year’s Mayor Making could take place before the commencement of works. The Mayoralty might need to be relocated to an interim location while the building was remodelled. The Mayor would continue to be consulted.

·       Whether the 17.5% contingency figure within the capital budget requirement could be reduced by accelerating plans for the rest of the site. It was explained that the costs reflected the nature of the work required to separate the vertical slice and enable it to operate independently. The Urban Regeneration Company (URC) was now looking at options for the wider site.

·       The figures shown in Appendix 2 were queried as incomplete. It was confirmed that the capital budget requirement total was £1.074 million and that the appendix would be adjusted.

·        A Board member asked why opportunities for the community use of the building had not been considered, as requested by the Members Working Group. It was confirmed that although the coroner and mayoralty were the key tenants, nothing had been ruled out for the building or the wider site.

·       A Board member queried the use of the term ‘disposal’ and asked about plans for the rest of the site, including the reference to a hotel and housing in the URC work programme.  It was explained that the area outside the red line was located for alternative use and was now part of an active workstream for the Future Places team. The Leader confirmed that the asset was not being sold or disposed of and the best possible community use would be made.

·       A councillor commented on the energy shortcomings of the current building and asked why a more campus based, energy efficient system wasn’t being put forward. It was explained that in the short term the most viable option was to operate with electric heating. Longer term there may be more opportunity for solar energy.  The solar panels on the multi storey car park would be retained, or if necessary relocated.

·       It was premature to make any decision on introducing car parking charges before the completion of work on BCP Civic Centre and before staff working patterns in the ‘new normal’ had been established.

During the discussion there were references to different types of community use, including the facility for community groups to book rooms for meetings and events, the community function of coroner and mayoralty services, and the wider benefits arising from a hotel or housing. Some members felt that the provision for the community to make use of parts of the building when it was available should be included as a commitment at this stage, otherwise it may get missed at a later stage in the plans. It was acknowledged that the coroner and mayoralty would take precedence in the use of the building.

Following discussion, it was proposed that an additional recommendation should be made to the Cabinet report. It was then

RESOLVED that the Overview and Scrutiny Board recommends that Cabinet considers how use of the retained section of the building by community groups can best be accommodated outside of Coroner and Mayoralty hours, making appropriate and reasonable adjustments to the current proposal where necessary while accepting this use is secondary to Coroner and Mayoralty use.

Organisational Design – Implementation Progress

The Leader of the Council with Portfolio for Finance and Transformation presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member of the Board and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'B' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Leader and officers addressed a number of points raised by the Board including:

·        A Board member questioned the progress made to date in delivering the new operating model, both in the savings achieved and the milestones reached. The Leader explained that the 2021/22 assumption had been reduced to £7.5million, in recognition that some of the work needed to be done before savings could be realised.He referred to the successful procurement process and the commitment to delivering the project.

·       The Board was reminded of the complexity of Local Government Reform (LGR) and the speed at which it had been delivered. From 2019 the Council had focussed on designing, agreeing and implementing its programme of transformation. It had progressed as far and fast as it could in challenging circumstances.

·       A Board member asked whether the total project variance figures in Appendix 4 (all currently nil) were to be expected. It was explained that the nil variance reflected determined efforts to keep within budget and also that implementation was still at an early stage.

·       A Board member asked whether an O&S member could be included on the cross-party working group. The Board was advised that O&S and the working group had separate roles. This did not mean that O&S membership on the working group would not be beneficial. This would be at the Leader’s discretion and would not preclude the Board from retaining overview of the whole programme.

·       Board members asked for more detailed information to be provided in future to enable more effective and visible scrutiny of the implementation of the programme. It would be helpful to have individual project plans, including timetables, targets, and risk registers. The Board was assured that this level of detail and more did exist, and while not all of it could be made public, it was intended to share much of this with the working group. The Board was also invited to arrange further dedicated sessions to look at the progress of the Transformation programme in more detail.

·       Board members asked whether the reference in paragraph 15 of the report, to the ‘absolutely critical need for very strong leadership within the Council to push…very hard..’, suggested there were obstacles to overcome.  It was explained that the report was open in acknowledging that there would be obstacles along the way and that delivering the project would not be easy. Further details could be shared with the Board without the need to go into exempt session.

·       It was acknowledged that the success of the programme was fundamental in delivering the benefits and efficiencies to support the Medium Term Financial Plan and the current administration’s priorities.

·       There were no minutes available for the Strategic Partnership Board meetings, (dates shown as triangles in the Programme implementation chart) but there were actions/decisions arising. 

In concluding the discussion, the Chairman referred to the huge amount of work done to prepare and deliver LGR and the contribution this has made to the Transformation programme. He also welcomed the assurance that more detailed project management for each workstream was being undertaken.

Smart Place Programme – ‘Futures Fund' funding of Gigabit Fibre and Smart Place Resources

The Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member of the Board and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'C' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Leader, Portfolio Holder and officers addressed a number of points raised by the Board including:

·       There were some concerns about whether the Council financing the proposal through borrowing was the right investment to make at this time. According to the financial appraisal the costs outweighed the savings without the Futures Fund contribution. It was explained that the project would break even over six years. It would result in a cost saving to the Council and was therefore considered value for money.

·       It was noted that the ducting/fibre element had not been included in the final funding from the Transforming Cities Fund as this had not been a TCF priority.

·       There were some questions about the longevity of fibre technology. The Board was assured that there was worldwide investment in fibre. It underpinned future developments in this field of technology and could be upgraded as and when required.

·       Board members questioned why the private sector was not leading on this project and asked if they had been approached. The benefits to the Council in proactively installing its own fibre in specific areas of the conurbation were outlined. It would enable the Council to control its own network, and at the same time build confidence with the private sector and investors.

·       A Board member commented that some areas on the map seemed better covered than others and queried the timing of the proposal when the location of Council hubs were not yet confirmed. It was explained that the network was integral to the Transformation programme, in connecting Council locations, meeting bandwidth demand and delivering long term savings. It could provide the Council with a closed network but with an option in the future to lease to others.

·       There were concerns about digging up roads again when the private sector had already installed fibre across the conurbation and it was suggested that the Council should have done this work at the same time as City Fibre. It was explained that ‘piggy-backing’ in this way was not always straightforward. The Board was assured that further disruption to residents would be avoided where possible.

Board members asked whether the costs of the entire project had been factored in at this stage, including all infrastructure requirements and long term maintenance, and if so, what advice had been sought in calculating these costs. There were also wider questions about the value for money of the proposal, the use of the Futures Fund and its allocation from LGR savings, and how the financial information had been presented and accounted for in the report.

The Board was told that the Futures Fund enabled the Council to invest in its priorities as it saw fit, to reduce future costs, without the need for a traditional business case. This proposal gave the Council strategic control of its own fibre network, without the costs of leasing from the private sector, and filled a gap in the original Transforming Travel project. There had been engagement with the private sector and there was interest in working with the Council to deliver this phase. It was noted that the costs shown in the report were the maximum and may reduce if other commercial operators installed their own ducting at the same time as the Council. It was confirmed that the costs shown included an allocation of £50k per year for maintenance. The Board was advised that the future cost avoidance was anticipated to be in the region of £9 million, but this was not taken into account in the report as it could not form part of ‘invest to save’ assessment.

The Finance Manager referred to the borrowing factors set out in Appendix 3 of the report. She explained that borrowing plus interest had already been included in the Medium Term Financial Plan. It was confirmed that this proposal met the purpose of the Futures Fund.

Following the discussion, it was proposed to recommend to Cabinet an additional recommendation to the report, that the installation of the gigabit-fibre network be suspended until a private sector partner was identified to contribute to this. This motion was not carried. A further proposal was made, that the Board does not have confidence that the scheme is viable and value for money and requests that Cabinet defers a decision until further information regarding the full expected savings is detailed and supplied to the Board. This motion was not carried.

In conclusion the Chairman commented on the needs of the Transformation programme and the aspiration to deliver a modern, connected conurbation. However, the debate on this issue had reflected the genuine concerns of some Board members about the uncertainty and lack of clarity in the report. The Leader indicated that he would be happy to work with O&S on ways of presenting information to members, including technical briefings.