Agenda item

The Chairman in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution sought approval of the Council to vary the order of business and bring forward item 7c – Audit and Governance Committee 2 December 2021 - Minute No 57 - Report of the Constitution Review Working Group - Changes to the Constitution to deal with these recommendations first under item 7.  The Chairman explained that the reason for this was to allow Simon Goacher from Weightmans to respond to any relevant questions or issues relating to the revision of the Constitution.

The Council agreed by consensus to vary the order of business.

Item 7c - Audit and Governance Committee 2 December 2021 - Minute No 57 - Report of the Constitution Review Working Group - Changes to the Constitution

Councillor Beesley, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee presented the report on changes to the Constitution as set out on the agenda and referred Members to the recommendations. Councillor Beesley provided background explaining that this was the second set of recommendations from the Audit and Governance Committee on proposed changes to the Constitution.  He explained the process that had been undertaken culminating in the recommendations before the Council.  Councillor Beesley reported that the Constitution developed as part of Local Government Reorganisation coming into 2019 was undertaken at some pace so it was always anticipated that changes would be required, and the work undertaken by Officers to tidy up the Constitution was a benefit to all who use it on a regular basis.  Councillors were advised of how the review of the Constitution had been undertaken which included inviting interested parties at appropriate stages such as the Chair of the Licensing Committee, the Chair of Planning Committee, appropriate officers and the external challenge and advice on best practice sought from external solicitors Weightmans.  Councillor Beesley reported that the recommendations that had come forward were now for Council to consider, namely were they fit for purpose and should they be included in the Constitution.  Members were advised that there were other proposals coming through and Councillor Beesley confirmed that the Audit and Governance Committee would go through the same process over the next few months prior to submitting recommendations to Council.

Councillor Beesley took the opportunity of thanking Officers for the huge amount or work undertaken and in particular Richard Jones, Head of Democratic Services, Susan Zeiss, Monitoring Officer and Bob Hanton Senior Democratic and Overview and Scrutiny Officer.  He also reported on the work of the Constitution Review Work Group which had been hugely beneficial and detailed and that all options had been explored to enable the Council to consider the work that has gone into the proposals and the rationale.  Councillor Williams in seconding the move paid tribute to the cross-party Working Group.

Simon Goacher, Weightmans explained that he had been engaged by the Council and had been working with officers to review the recommendations and consider them against the legal requirements and best practice.  He reported that Weightmans advises a number of Local Authorities on constitutional issues and has reviewed the recommendations before the Council and was content that they were consistent with the legal requirements of the Council and best practice in terms of managing its business effectively and efficiently.

Councillor Slade moved the following amendment:

Item 7(c)(iii)That the following words be deleted from recommendation (iii) “subject to:- Part 3A, paragraph 7.1.1 being deleted (i.e. the removal of responsibility for personnel-related appeals)”.

She explained the reason for the above amendment emphasising that the involvement of Councillors in HR appeals was incredibly valuable with the Appeals Committee being the final arbiter in the Council of employment related matters which has led to improved procedures. Councillor Slade indicated that she had spoken to members of the Appeals Committee who had not instigated this change and therefore she could see no benefit in removing it. Councillor Moore seconded the above amendment.

Councillors commented on the amendments including Councillor Dunlop who indicated that Councillors were not qualified to sit in judgement on matters of employment.  Councillor Filer emphasised that she had long been of the opinion that it was an anomaly and archaic to appeal a decision to the Appeals Committee.  She outlined the potential for a number of appeals due to transformation and that the Council has professional HR officers to deal with such issues.  Councillor Bartlett supported the comments made by Councillor Filer and highlighted that the HR department was there to represent the employee as well as the employer with managers who were professionally trained, and he saw no advantage in Councillors adjudicating on such matters.  Councillor Le Poidevin reported as a current member of the Appeals Committee highlighting that training was provided, and professional HR Officers were in attendance when HR Appeals were undertaken.  She felt that it was natural justice that the Appeals Committee can be impartial and supported its continuation in considering HR Appeals.  Councillor Brooke from his own experiences supported the amendment and did not agree that Councillors were unqualified. He highlighted that Councillors bring a wide variety of experience.  Councillor Cox, whilst not supporting the comments that Councillors were unqualified, felt that such HR appeals should be left to Officers.  Councillor Howell referred to the loss of specialist skills and therefore Councillors being able to intervene at an early stage in those circumstances would be beneficial. Councillor Beesley explained that his support was for the recommended change to the Constitution, he outlined the reasons and felt that it was inappropriate for Councillors to be involved in such operational matters.

Councillor Slade in summing up on the amendment explained that she felt strongly that the Appeals Committee was supported by HR and that Members of the Committee do not feel overwhelmed by dealing with such appeals.  She commented on the suggestion that Councillors were random, unqualified and untrained whilst highlighting that Councillors were representatives of the Community.  Councillor Slade referred to the comment made that other public organisations do not deal with such appeals in the same way as the Council.  She emphasised that this could be said about virtually everything that the Council does as none of these organisations run like local authorities.

The Council voted on the following amendment moved by Councillor Slade and seconded by Councillor Moore:

Item 7(c)(iii)That the following words be deleted from recommendation (iii) “subject to:- Part 3A, paragraph 7.1.1 being deleted (i.e. the removal of responsibility for personnel-related appeals)”.

Voting – For – 17, Against – 39, Abstentions – 6

The amendment was lost

Councillor George Farquhar wished to be recorded as voting for the amendment.

Councillor Broadhead referred to recommendation 7(c)(iv) and reported that he supported the principle for a Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee which could add to the value of the Overview and Scrutiny function.  He explained that there had been a number of comments on whether the Overview and Scrutiny function within BCP Council was operating to the best of its capacity and he felt that a Place based Committee would add to that.  However, at the all-member briefing held last week it had been noted that the Audit and Governance Committee was going to consider the rest of the Overview and Scrutiny function.  Councillor Broadhead reported that it would be preferable for the whole of the Overview and Scrutiny function including the proposal for the Place based Overview and Scrutiny Committee to be considered in the round including consideration of the resource and financial implications.

Councillor Broadhead in accordance with Procedure 9 paragraph 4 moved the following motion without notice. Councillor Mellor seconded the above motion and reserved his right to speak.    

Item 7(c)(iv) - Motion without Notice to refer Recommendation (iv) (Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee) back to Audit and Governance Committee for reconsideration.

The Monitoring Officer requested that Councillor Broadhead provide the wording of his amendment.  Councillor Broadhead clarified that he was bringing forward a motion without notice for recommendation (iv) to be referred back to the Audit and Governance Committee for reconsideration.

Councillors commented on the proposal detailed above. Councillor Bartlett as chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Board reported that he was disappointed that this motion had been submitted at short notice when the option for a Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been discussed at length across all of the existing Overview and Scrutiny Committees over the last six to nine months.  He explained that the proposal had been broadly accepted across the Committees.  Councillor Bartlett explained that it would be disappointing if this process was delayed given that the Overview and Scrutiny function has been operating for a couple of years but not as well as it could, and this proposal provided an opportunity to move it forward.  Councillor Bartlett reported that he did not understand the rationale and he could not support the referral back to the Audit and Governance Committee. Councillor Hadley, in supporting Councillor Bartlett’s comments, thought that the key issue was for the new Committee to be in place for the next municipal year.  Councillor Mellor clarified the proposal indicating that to add a Committee to a function which was not functioning effectively does not fix the problem.  He reported that there had been checks on future Council meetings and the Audit and Governance programme and there was no intention that a revised O&S function including a Place based Committee could not be in place for the new Municipal Year.  Councillor Slade expressed her concern on the work undertaken at the training session and indicated that it was disrespectful to the Council that the Members have presented a proposal without notice and without really engaging with the process over the last few months.  She indicated that the Member engagement meeting had not been attended by the Group Leader of the Conservatives or Deputy Leader at which this had extensively been discussed.  Councillor Fear reported that the motion was providing time for Members to consider proposals and to get it right and he was therefore supportive of the motion.

Councillor Beesley reported on his role as Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee.  He explained that as far as Constitutional matters were concerned, the Committee undertake to do the work required of Council.  In terms of the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee the Audit and Governance Committee would use its best endeavours to go through a process if that was the will of Council this evening and to bring back a comprehensive set of proposals in time for enactment for the new municipal year on the basis that the resources were available from Democratic Services, the Council generally and external advice on best practice.  He reported that given all of those issues being met then he was prepared not only to use best endeavours but every opportunity to recommend to the Council a workable solution for the new municipal year.

Councillor Cox felt that it was an unacceptable motion and did not see any reason why the Council could not continue with the proposed recommendation as submitted and adjust as appropriate later.  Councillor Phipps expressed her surprise that this had only just come forward she referred to the considerable work that had been undertaken and the workload of the Committee.

Councillor Broadhead in summing up indicated that there was agreement that the Overview and Scrutiny function was not working effectively and that a Place based Overview and Scrutiny Committee was a good idea.  He explained that at the end of the training session it was announced that the Audit and Governance Committee would be looking at the rest of the Overview and Scrutiny function so, for the sake of one cycle his strong feeling was to undertake this work properly.

The Council voted on the following moved by Councillor Broadhead and seconded by Councillor Mellor

Item 7(c)(iv) - Motion without Notice to refer Recommendation (iv) (Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee) back to Audit and Governance Committee for reconsideration.

Voting – For – 39, Against – 26, Abstentions – 0

The above motion without notice was carried therefore recommendation 7(c)(iv) will be referred back to the Audit and Governance Committee for reconsideration.

Councillor Mike Greene indicated that he had an amendment to move on the limit of responses to questions from Councillors to 3 minutes.  He explained that no Member needs to ask a question at full Council as the opportunity to ask questions was available 24/7.  He acknowledged that Councillors often wish to ask a question in the most public way possible for a number of reasons.  He emphasised that it was equally important that the answers to those questions were as full as was required.  Councillor Greene reported that many of the questions asked were multi-faceted often in a number of parts and it would be a dis-service to the questioner and all those interested if a less than adequate answer was provided purely because of a time limit.  Councillor Greene indicated that he fully understood the purpose of the proposal was not to make life difficult for those answering the questions but to find a way of speeding up Council and ensuring all those who have submitted questions have an opportunity to ask them without time running out.  He emphasised that such an occurrence was rare, and both the current and previous Chairman had exercised flexibility in extending the time period for dealing with Councillors questions.  He felt that if the Council was to really examine the length of Council meetings it was not Councillor questions that should be looked at.  Councillor Greene also highlighted that if this applied to responses to questions from Members of the Public it would be discourteous to deny them the best answer that can be provided.  He accepted that there have been occasions when answers have been longer than they needed to be, and he indicated that it was incumbent on Cabinet and Lead Members to be as concise as possible but that a 3-minute limit would restrict the opportunity to fully and fairly respond to questions.  Councillor Greene moved the following amendment:    

Item 7(c)(v) Part B Procedure Rule 13.5 – to remove the words "or response to a question" from the proposed changes

Councillor Iyengar seconded the amendment and in doing so highlighted that what was at stake was the quality of discussion and the decision making on behalf of residents.  He explained that some responses lend themselves to 3-minute responses others have a wider scope and require a longer answer. 

Councillor Hadley felt that a response should be provided within 3 minutes and if there was further supplementary information that would be useful to have.  He also commented that questions raised outside of Council were not always provided in a timely manner.  Councillor Hadley felt that responses should be succinct and clear, and the time limit should apply to the answers as well as the question. Councillor Trent, joining remotely, indicated that two thirds of responses to questions he had asked had been a political lecture with a tiny fraction being the answer and the discipline of three minutes should apply to both sides.

Councillor Stribley explained that the point had been made that Councillors do not need to ask questions because if information was required Councillors can go direct to the relevant officer or Member for an answer.  She highlighted the nature of responses to public questions and added that questions should be dealt with at the end of the agenda. Councillor Cox reported that questions were raised but Members do not always receive a response.  Councillor Farquhar referred to the suggestion from Councillor Stribley that Councillor questions were dealt with at the end of the agenda.  He explained that the reason why he brings questions to full Council was that he listens to other Members questions which makes him aware of issues across the whole of the BCP area.  Councillor Farquhar referred to a response to a public question given earlier in the meeting which he felt could have been more dynamic and was very lengthy.  Councillor Fear felt that anyone who was going to vote against the amendment was being anti-democratic as it would take away the reasonableness of having a question answered acknowledging the opportunity for a supplementary.  Councillor Rigby reported that he was not in favour of the amendment he referred to supplementary questions which he indicated were more off the cuff with responsive feedback.  He asked if there would be another 3 minutes for the supplementary questions and indicated that moving the questions to the end of the agenda could be more beneficial.  Councillor Wilson reported that based on the comment about being anti-democratic the Council should remove all time and word limits.  He also supported the suggestion to move questions to the end of the agenda.  Councillor Nicola Greene indicated that she understood the thinking behind the proposal, but the amendment was right as the proposal conflicts with accountability and transparency.  She referred to the public question that she responded to earlier in the meeting which had three parts, and all required a response.  She outlined the approach that she had taken and the offer to the member of the public to meet with her and an officer to discuss the response.  Councillor Slade as a point of clarification indicated that the proposed changes to the Constitution do include a change of order for Council business which does move Councillor questions to the end of the agenda.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that one of the proposed amendments in the Constitution was that the order of business for Council was reorganised putting Councillor questions at the end of the agenda which was one of the many changes which Members could seek further amendment on or debate. Councillors were advised that the proposal from Councillor Stribley was not necessary as it was already one of the proposed changes to the Constitution.

Councillor Mike Greene in summing up responded to the issues raised during debate including the timing of the proposal which was due to the publication of the papers which were discussed last week and the political element of responses to questions.  Councillor Greene also referred to the questions that he had responded to since becoming a Cabinet Member of the 16 responses 13 were provided within 3 minutes 2 were 4-minute answers and one was a 6.5 minute response so the comments made by Councillor Cox were not correct. He also indicated that the only strangle hold was the proposed time restriction on Members’ responses to questions.

The Council voted on the following amendment moved by Councillor Mike Greene and seconded by Councillor Iyengar

Item 7(c)(v) Part B Procedure Rule 13.5 – to remove the words "or response to a question" from the proposed changes

Voting – For – 41; Against – 18, Abstentions – 7

The above amendment was carried.

Councillor Beesley in summing up indicated that he was glad to see that the recommendations on the review of the Constitution were largely intact and that was in part due to the thoroughness of the work undertaken by the Audit and Governance Committee and the huge support from Democratic Services and Legal Services.  He reported that there would be more opportunities for amendments to come forward which would go through the same process prior to recommendations being submitted to Council.  Councillor Beesley indicated that the all-Member briefing last Thursday had been a huge benefit and it was proposed to arrange similar briefings in the future.

Councillor Beesley commented on the proposal relating to the work on the Overview and Scrutiny function.  He reported that his intention was that the debate would take place through the Audit and Governance Committee process so that when the issue was referred back to Council the proposal could be strongly supported cross-party and provided a workable solution which was fit for purpose for the longer term.  He highlighted the amount of work undertaken including minor and technical changes to the Constitution.

The Council then voted on the substantive motion which included the recommendations arising from the Audit and Governance Committee on 2 December 2021 as set out on the agenda as amended by the agreed changes set out above.

Voting – For – 64, Against – 1, Abstentions – 1

Councillor Mike Brooke wished it to be recorded that he objected to the decision relating to Part 3A, paragraph 7.1.1.

Councillor Diana Butler requested to be recorded as voting against the substantive motion apart from Section A1.

The substantive motion was carried.

Item 7a - Cabinet 24 November 2021 - Minute No 86 - Estates and Accommodation - BCP Civic Space

Councillor Filer, Chairman of the Civic Space Working Party, presented the report on the BCP Civic Space as set out on the agenda and outlined the recommendation.  She explained that she had chaired the working party which included Councillors Diana Butler and Marcus Andrews and outlined the work undertaken.  Councillor Filer highlighted the priorities which were to ensure that the building was easily accessible for everyone, that the Council Chamber could comfortably accommodate all Councillors and had the appropriate technology, that the whole area was flexible, safe and secure, fully compliant with fire safety and that all the meeting areas including baby changing areas were decorated and refreshed to modern standards.  Councillor Filer explained that because so many features of the exterior and interior of the building were listed it was not straightforward to convert it into a modern centre suitable for present and future needs.  She highlighted that once it had been remodelled the new civic centre would offer greatly enhanced facilities and would be fully accessible. Councillors were advised that the Civic Centre would be well used by a number of stakeholders.  Councillor Filer emphasised that the centre should be accessible for all with dignity regardless of mobility or other needs and that it would be well used and become a source of pride for all the residents of BCP Council area. Councillor Mellor in seconding the proposals started by thanking the Members of the Working Party.  He felt that it was a thorough piece of work and reported that the ambitions for the building had been split into two phases.  Councillors were advised that Phase 1 delivered a democratic centre fit for purpose which would be modern and accessible including the ability to stream meetings and enable more people to watch and get involved in the business of the Council.  Councillor Mellor outlined the level of investment of £1m. 

Councillors commented on the proposals.  Councillor Hadley welcomed the proposed changes to make the civic space accessible and multi-functional.  He asked in light of the declaration of the climate emergency, what steps were being taken to future proof the civic space towards the net zero targets especially in terms of minimising energy use.  Councillor Hadley highlighted that there were no references in the plans for additional insulation, heat recovery, ventilation systems, triple glazing etc.  He outlined a number of elements which should be standard features if the 2030 target was to be met.  He asked that the public were reassured on how this refurbishment would adapt best standards for climate mitigation to be fit for the next 30 years and reduce the risk of spiralling energy costs.  

Councillor Le Poidevin reported that she wanted to move an amendment as follows:         

Add an additional recommendation to para b) on p45 of the agenda, to form two parts and reading:

b(ii) Should the lowest tender figure exceed the sum in para b) (i) by 15%, any request for approval of Phase 1 works to Council must first be brought back to the Civic Centre Working Party for recommendations and re-consideration that all the items summarised in para 24 are essential for the BCP Civic Centre.

Councillor Le Poidevin reported that the purpose of this amendment was to ensure that at all stages there was full democratic oversight of the transformation of the Town Hall, Bournemouth into a suitable Civic Centre for BCP Council and in particular that a close eye was kept on the cost.  She reported that a key factor in the formation of the Council was the opportunity to make substantial savings and she felt that already the level of savings was decreasing. Councillor Le Poidevin highlighted that it was necessary to take every opportunity to avoid unnecessary expenditure.  She explained that the budget of £1.067 m already had a built-in contingency of 17.5% so this amendment would, only become operative if all tenders exceed the base figure by more than 32.5%.  She acknowledged that this could involve a delay in the scheme which was already tight but that could be no excuse for rushing into accepting an excessive bid as it was incumbent upon all Councillors to achieve value for money and cut out wasteful spending. 

Councillor Andrews in seconding the amendment reported that as a Member of the Civic Working Party he had concentrated on the improvements and the adaptions.  He highlighted that Phase 1 was the start of the scheme and the cost of circa £1m was a desktop estimate.  He explained that his concern was that the tenders would be very much higher and referred to the considerable increase in building costs in 2021.  Councillor Andrews reported that he was not happy with the recommendation which proposed delegated authority as he feared it would be more than £1m and therefore it was necessary to have a check on the final figure.

Councillor Mellor indicated that if the budget exceeded the amount agreed by Council, then it would be necessary to come back to Council as there was no authority to spend budget in excess of the level agreed by Council. 

Councillor Le Poidevin in summing up requested confirmation from the Officers before taking the vote that the point that the Leader of the Council had made was correct whereby any figure above the budget agreed by Council would have to come back to Council.  She indicated that it should also go to the working party.  The Section 151 Officer clarified the Council’s Financial Regulations and indicated that his advice would normally be if Council had approved a scheme of £1m and there was a variation the variation would need approval.  The issue would be who obtains the approval this could be a Service Director, Cabinet or Full Council and that would depend on the value associated with the change and how it would be funded.  The Chief Executive reported that there would not be a situation whereby the Council would approve a £1m budget and £1.499m would be spent under officer delegation. Therefore, any variation would be brought back as appropriate.

The Council then voted on the following amendment moved by Councillor Le Poidevin and seconded by Councillor Andrews:

b(ii) Should the lowest tender figure exceed the sum in para b) (i) by 15%, any request for approval of Phase 1 works to Council must first be brought back to the Civic Centre Working Party for recommendations and re-consideration that all the items summarised in para 24 are essential for the BCP Civic Centre.

Voting – For – 11, Against – 41, Abstentions – 13

The amendment was lost.

Councillors then considered the recommendation as set out on the agenda.

Councillor Evans asked if a safe space would be provided for breast feeding in the new civic space and if the portfolio holder agreed that breast feeding was beneficial for mums, babies, the environment and enabling this to happen should be a priority.  She asked if so, could consideration be given to a dedicated area in the new civic space.

Councillor Butler raised a number of issues she referred Councillors to page 58 of the agenda pack which was a plan of part of the building and referred to the bottle shaped room with a marking of 6.  She explained that this was the Willows Room used for weddings and other functions and the proposal was to change the bay window which was a main feature to have a fire escape.  Councillor Butler indicated that a more aesthetic option would be to relocate the fire escape to the door in the window at the other end of the room on the left-hand side which was off an anti-room.  Councillor Butler felt that this would reduce the cost and would not affect the listed window.  She also referred to the financial risk on page 53 paragraph 48 of the agenda pack, the opportunity to generate income on an annual basis, the cost identified for moving memorabilia and suggested that the carpets and the seating in the Council Chamber could be left until later.  Council Slade raised her concern regarding the timing.  She highlighted both phases 1 and 2, the required planning applications and the proposal to move back into the space in May following the closure of the Poole Civic Offices.  Councillor Slade reported that the proposal for the work to be completed by May was not realistic taking account of the planning process, the listed building timeline and the procurement process which would run for a minimum of 4 weeks.  Councillor Slade also indicated that there was no reference in the budget for the cost of hiring external venues such as the BIC if required.

Councillor Filer in summing up referred to the comments from Councillor Hadley which she supported and indicated that the team would be mindful of the issues that he had raised. She acknowledged that the rising and unprecedented costs needed to be borne in mind and the issues raised by Councillor Slade should be referred to officers for response.  Councillor Filer explained that the Working Party was mindful of the need for spaces for parents and children and asked that the officers consider space for breast feeding.  Councillor Filer suggested that the comments from Councillor Butler on the fire escape in the Willows room should be taken back to the officers for consideration.  Councillor Filer indicated that the timing does seem tight but that this was an issue for officers to respond to.  She explained that the Council Chamber would be renovated in the six weeks between Council meetings.

The Council then took a vote on the recommendation arising from the Cabinet meeting on 24 November 2021 as set out on the agenda which was carried as follows:

Voting – Unanimous

The meeting was adjourned from 21:35 until 21:47

Councillor Cheryl Johnson left the meeting at 21.35

 

Item 7(b) - Cabinet 24 November 2021 - Minute No 90 - Pokesdown Railway Station Improvement

Prior to consideration of the recommendations Councillor Slade asked the following question

Can the portfolio holder please confirm what bids and approaches were made to the Western Gateway Sub Regional Transport Board and to the Dorset LEP for funding towards lifts at Pokesdown station?  As the platforms at other stations within the BCP area are also inaccessible for those with disabilities, should we be expecting announcements that the council taxpayer will be subsidising the rail companies facilities at the other stations.

Reply from Councillor Mike Greene, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability

The Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership’s Local Growth Fund which related to transport infrastructure and facilitating future growth was exhausted and came to an end well before the opportunity arose for the Council to participate in the Pokesdown project. This would have been the only fund for which the Council could submit an eligible bid. It was therefore not appropriate and would not have served any purpose to approach the LEP.

The Western Gateway is not Sub-Regional as the question states – it is Sub-national and concentrates only on strategic projects and strategies themselves which have the scale for significant large area impact. Moreover, it is not a funding body to which councils can submit bids for projects like these. It does not hold or distribute funds itself: it promotes bids of sub-national importance to the Department for Transport. Even if the Pokesdown Station scheme had somehow been considered within that class – and I cannot see how that would be possible – all Western Gateway-driven investment for the period 2020-2025 was identified and secured well before the funding shortfall was identified.

The Council Taxpayer is not subsidising South Western Railway’s facilities. The facilities themselves are the property of Network Rail – which is publicly-owned - and only leased to SWR as the current franchisee: Indeed, it is SWR’s £1.6 million contribution which is subsidising public facilities. When SWR’s franchise ends, so will any benefit that they derive. In contrast, our Council Taxpayers will be able to continue to use these much-enhanced facilities forever.

It would be fantastic if more opportunities like this were to come along:  where the Council is able to partner National Rail and SWR to deliver significant improvement to stations, and particularly their accessibility.   If they do, I am sure the Council would be extremely keen to explore them. There may also be potential through the National Rail Strategy. However, as it stands, Pokesdown is in the unique position where extensive lobbying over many years by Andy Jones before he was a councillor, Tobias Ellwood MP, the old Bournemouth Council and others led eventually to substantial funds being committed by the franchisee.

Rather than carping from the side-lines, we should all be celebrating the success on behalf of those with limited mobility and everyone else who will benefit from these changes.

Councillor Slade as a supplementary asked the Portfolio Holder to clarify, with the direct funding from the Council taxpayer to parts of the station, what consideration was being given to additional community space within the Pokesdown station.  Councillor Mike Greene referred to appendix 1 of the report which provided more detail on what was expected in the station, and he would be referring to it during the debate on the recommendations.

Councillor Mike Greene, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability, presented the report on the Pokesdown Railway Station Improvement as set out on the agenda and outlined the recommendations. He provided a brief history on the issues.  Councillor Greene indicated that a third of a million passengers use the station each year but have difficulties due to the steep stairs which mean that the platforms were very difficult to access by many disabled people and those with limited mobility and that there have been several accidents.  Councillor Greene reported that for more than a decade there had been a campaign to get lifts installed at the station.  He explained that Andy Jones, the local MP, Bournemouth Borough Council and various others had been pushing the Department for Transport very hard for such facilities and the result was that the requirement in the franchise eventually won by South Western Railway was that those lifts needed to be installed.  He reported that as investigations proceeded SWR discovered that having allocated £1.6m to the project they had significantly underestimated the sum needed and a battle developed between Bournemouth Borough Council and them on whether SWR were required to go ahead whatever the cost. Members were informed that when Covid arrived SWR’s patronage levels dropped massively, and it became loss making and through a national rail contract it was taken over and SWR was paid a fee to run the service.  Councillor Greene explained that the recommendations before the Council not only resolved the stalemate over the lifts but go further as SWR (effectively the Department of Transport) had indicated that they would still provide £1.6m even though the new contract means that they do not have to.  Network Rail have agreed a contribution of £1.5m and the Council if recommendations were approved today would act as a funder of last resort providing a contribution of up to £2.6m to complete the funding needed to deliver a package of measures not just the lifts but platform and bridge improvements, security enhancements eg additional CCTV, additional accessibility works and a much needed overhaul of the building and forecourt.

Councillor Greene reported that this was discussed extensively at Overview and Scrutiny Board, and he hoped that any questions had now been answered.  He emphasised that this opportunity delivered on aspirations.

Councillor Jones in seconding the recommendations highlighted that it was testament to the incredibly hard work and dedication of the residents in Boscombe and Pokesdown areas who had campaigned tirelessly to make the station accessible to all groups.  He explained that whilst it was not possible to thank all those involved in the campaign over the last 10 years, he took the opportunity to thank a few including DOTS disability group, the writers of the Pokesdown Station song, Ben Smith the Chairman of the Station Action Group who set up the make Pokesdown Station accessible petition signed by over 2,000 people and committee members of the Pokesdown Community Forum both past and present who had initiated the campaign. In conclusion he outlined why the Council should make a financial contribution to the project and was fully supportive of the recommendations in the report.

Councillors in considering the recommendations raised a number of issues including the significant cost to the Council taxpayers for lifts which for most of the time would be motionless and as very few trains stop at the station the costs did not represent value for money for residents, the cost of providing the lifts was not the responsibility of BCP Council but the accepted responsibility of the railway network, the other benefits were not guaranteed as the lifts would take priority in terms of the expenditure, the improvements would not make a difference to the local economy, the use of the Futures Fund to pay for the project and that the cross-party Overview and Scrutiny Board had recommended to Cabinet not to proceed with the project.  A number of members expressed concern about the funding methods, the failure of SWR to provide the lifts by 2019 and that those funds should be provided centrally.  It was suggested that there was a considerable amount of uncertainty in the report presented whilst it was essential to maximise the public benefit.

Councillor Kelly took the opportunity to thank Councillor Jones for his determination.  She outlined the need to improve the station in particular as residents were encouraged to use public transport and explained that the injection of funding to enable the lifts to be installed and modernise the station was to be welcomed and would provide an increased feeling of wellbeing. She also highlighted the benefits to reinvigorate the Boscombe area.

Councillor Broadhead explained that the station provided a gateway to Boscombe.  He explained that due to the £23m Towns Fund investment from the Government Boscombe was going through a renaissance. He commented on the concerns relating to the funding method and that others should fulfil their responsibility.  Councillor Broadhead highlighted that through the plan that had been developed the burden of the cost was not on Council taxpayers alone and the Council was finally able to see the commitment from relevant agencies come to fruition. He explained that if the Council did not contribute the improvements would not happen.  In response to the issue of other stations needing similar improvements Councillor Broadhead indicated that if costed and matched funded solutions similar to Pokesdown could be provided then he would consider such proposals.  He referred to the Futures Fund which was there to invest in our future.

Councillor Rigby whilst supporting the improvements raised his concerns on why Council taxpayers were paying for private companies who were not prepared to fulfil contractual obligations. In particular he asked what message it provided to others.

Councillor Farquhar referred to the public statement made by Ben Smith earlier in the meeting.  He referred to the provisions in the Constitution which restricts public statements to 100 words and therefore the statement could not acknowledge the unfailing efforts of the campaign.  Councillor Farquhar took the opportunity to thank the Pokesdown Community Forum, Access Dorset, the Pokesdown Station Action Group and the community efforts in the campaign.  Councillor Farquhar suggested that other areas could use this campaign as a model for there area. 

Councillor Dunlop reminded the Council that 25% of the population suffers from some form of disability and together with older people and those with pushchairs etc they were all entitled to receive the same value for money as able-bodied people.  She emphasised that the Council should do the right thing.

Councillor Brown commented on the use of statistics and questioned the reference to a third of a million people using the station.  He referred to the report which indicated that there were 350,000 exits/entries to the station which was equivalent to 1,000 commuters using the station which feeds into the value for money concerns.

Councillor Mellor reported the cost of the Futures Fund had already been saved and the money was now being invested in projects such as Pokesdown Station improvements. He outlined how the project was being delivered with the negotiation and campaigning that had been undertaken. Councillor Howell reported that these were funds that the Council needed to borrow, and interest would need to be paid on the loan over a 50-year period.  He indicated there was an absence of a co-ordinated approach with other stations that need similar improvements and asked what other MPs were doing as there needed to be a co-ordinated upgrade of the network.  Councillor Cox questioned the funding mechanism for the project. 

Councillor Dove referred to the impact of the Council’s decision on the quality of residents’ lives.  With the permission of the Chairman, she read out an email from a local resident who was an elite wheelchair racer outlining his comments on the proposed project and how it would impact on his life.

Councillor Slade reported that she supported accessibility and making public transport more available for a wider range of people but, explained that it did not feel appropriate for the Council to be contributing to the project from the Futures Fund.  Councillor Slade proposed an amendment the purpose of which was try and overcome the concern about the risks to the Council, the use of Council taxpayers’ money and to ensure that the Council taxpayer was protected without preventing the ability of the project and funding being agreed.  Councillor Cox seconded the amendment.

Councillor Greene acknowledged the reason for the amendment but expressed his disappointment that those who should have been involved in the discussions between May 2019 and October 2020 failed to understand the position the Council was in.  He explained that there was a commitment to install the lifts made by SWR during the franchise agreement but when the National Rail contract took over SWR the obligations in the franchise ceased.  He highlighted that the Council had through SWR, National Rail and the Department for Transport ensured the commitment of the £1.6m and there was every likelihood that if further conditions were included then the improvements would not happen.

Councill Hadley referred to the business case at Appendix A indicating that if the money was underspent the Network Rail contribution would deliver the improvements to the booking office and the premises at street level.  However, if there was an overspend there was no clarity on the apportionment of the contribution from the Council.  The amendment provided clarity and prudency for the Council acting as funder of last resort.

Councillor Farquhar reported that there were three component parts to the amendment. In particular he raised concerns regarding the comments that SWR was effectively bankrupt but, supported the proposal for the community space.  At the request of the Monitoring Officer the meeting was adjourned to review the proposed amendment.

The meeting was adjourned from 22.40 until 22.53

 

The Chief Executive read of the following amendment in bold type moved by Councillor Slade and Seconded by Councillor Cox

It is RECOMMENDED that,

Subject to the following:

1.    A clear statement of the apportionment of risk and a limitation on the contribution from BCP council, and

2.    That any funds borrowed in order to fund this proposal are only released on delivery of functional lifts.

3.    That consideration is given to the available space adjacent to the booking hall being used as a community room facility rather than a commercial facility,

 

Council:-

(a)           approves £2.6m from BCP’s Future Funds be allocated towards the improvement of Pokesdown Railway Station;

(b)           approve that delegated joint authority be given to the Director of Transport and Engineering and the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability to finalise a legal agreement with partners to cover the forthcoming arrangement;

(c)           approve that governance is delegated to the Regeneration Board to monitor and manage project progress including decision making related to any minor variation; and

(d)           note that the Future funds allocation if approved shall include for any BCP costs to progress the technical, financial and legal work required.

Councillors then considered the amendment.  Councillor Bartlett expressed his concern on making and dealing with alternative recommendations on complex issues and the potential for unintended consequences.  Councillor Broadhead agreed with the points made by Councillor Bartlett on unintended consequences and indicated that he would be requesting a recorded vote.

Councillor Slade in summing up indicated that this was not intended to be a wrecking amendment.  She reported that this was a well-intended amendment to reassure those who have concerns about the use of public funding.

In accordance with the Constitution a recorded vote was taken on the amendment detailed above

For – 16

Cllr Marcus Andrews	Cllr L-J Evans	Cllr Chris Matthews
Cllr Mike Brooke	Cllr Andy Hadley	Cllr Simon McCormack
Cllr David Brown	Cllr Paul Hilliard	Cllr Sandra Moore
Cllr Richard Burton	Cllr Marion LePoidevin	Cllr Margaret Phipps
Cllr Mike Cox	Cllr Rachel Maidment	Cllr Vikki Slade
Cllr Millie Earl

 

Against – 39

Cllr Mark Anderson	Cllr Bobbie Dove	Cllr Andy Jones
Cllr Sarah Anderson	Cllr Beverley Dunlop	Cllr Jane Kelly
Cllr Julie Bagwell	Cllr Jackie Edwards	Cllr David Kelsey
Cllr Steve Baron	Cllr Duane Farr	Cllr Bob Lawton
Cllr John Beesley	Cllr Laurence Fear	Cllr Drew Mellor
Cllr Derek Borthwick	Cllr Anne Filer	Cllr Susan Phillips
Cllr Philip Broadhead	Cllr Sean Gabriel	Cllr Karen Rampton
Cllr Nigel Brooks	Cllr Mike Greene	Cllr Roberta Rocca
Cllr Daniel Butt	Cllr Nicola Greene	Cllr Ann Stribley
Cllr Judes Butt	Cllr May Haines	Cllr Mike White
Cllr Eddie Coope	Cllr Peter Hall	Cllr Lawrence Williams
Cllr Malcolm Davies	Cllr Mohan Iyengar	Cllr Tony O’Neill
Cllr Bryan Dion	Cllr Toby Johnson	Cllr Nigel Hedges

 

Abstentions – 10

Cllr Lewis Allison	Cllr George Farquhar	Cllr Lisa Northover
Cllr Stephen Bartlett	Cllr Mark Howell	Cllr Chris Rigby
Cllr Simon Bull	Cllr Peter Miles	Cllr Kieron Wilson
Cllr Diana Butler

 

The amendment was lost.

   

Councillor Mike Greene in summing up asked Cllr Jones and Cllr Farquhar to convey his thanks along with theirs to all the community groups. He commented on value for money and the level of return.  He referred to the access for all projects being undertaken around the country and indicated that all have local contributions as far as he was aware.  He stressed that the opportunity for the Council not to have to contribute was no longer available and this was not about providing a subsidy to a private operator.    He reminded members of the proposed improvements.   

In accordance with the Constitution a recorded vote was taken on the recommendations arising from the Cabinet on 24 November 2021.

For – 56

Cllr Lewis Allison	Cllr Bobbie Dove	Cllr Bob Lawton
Cllr Mark Anderson	Cllr Beverley Dunlop	Cllr Rachel Maidment
Cllr Sarah Anderson	Cllr Jackie Edwards	Cllr Chris Matthews
Cllr Marcus Andrews	Cllr George Farquhar	Cllr Simon McCormack
Cllr Julie Bagwell	Cllr Duane Farr	Cllr Drew Mellor
Cllr Steve Baron	Cllr Laurence Fear	Cllr Sandra Moore
Cllr John Beesley	Cllr Anne Filer	Cllr Lisa Northover
Cllr Derek Borthwick	Cllr Sean Gabriel	Cllr Susan Phillips
Cllr Philip Broadhead	Cllr Mike Greene	Cllr Margaret Phipps
Cllr Mike Brooke	Cllr Nicola Greene	Cllr Karen Rampton
Cllr Nigel Brooks	Cllr Andy Hadley	Cllr Roberta Rocca
Cllr David Brown	Cllr May Haines	Cllr Vikki Slade
Cllr Simon Bull	Cllr Peter Hall	Cllr Ann Stribley
Cllr Richard Burton	Cllr Paul Hilliard	Cllr Mike White
Cllr Daniel Butt	Cllr Mohan Iyengar	Cllr Lawrence Williams
Cllr Judes Butt	Cllr Toby Johnson	Cllr Kieron Wilson
Cllr Eddie Coope	Cllr Andy Jones	Cllr Tony O’Neill
Cllr Malcolm Davies	Cllr Jane Kelly	Cllr Nigel Hedges
Cllr Bryan Dion	Cllr David Kelsey

 

Against – 1

Cllr Mike Cox

 

 

Abstentions – 8

Cllr Stephen Bartlett	Cllr L-J Evans	Cllr Pete Miles
Cllr Diana Butler	Cllr Mark Howell	Cllr Chris Rigby
Cllr Millie Earl	Cllr Marion LePoidevin

 

The recommendations arising from the Cabinet meeting on 24 November 2021 as set out on the agenda were carried.

 

Item 7d - Audit and Governance Committee 2 December 2021 - Minute No 59 - Process for the appointment of external auditors 2023/24 to 2027/28   

Councillor Beesley, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee presented the report on the process for the appointment of external auditors for 2023/24 to 2027/28 as set out on the agenda and outlined the recommendation. He reported that there was a collective procurement process set up and in place which was adopted by most local authorities and explained that due to the costs of appointing external auditors in any other way it was clear why so many Local Authorities adopted the collective procurement route. He asked the Council to support the recommendation and approve the national appointment arrangements.  Councillor Beesley asked Members to note that the proposal had the complete support of the Council’s Chief Internal Auditor together with the Chief Executive, the Chief Financial Officer and the Monitoring Officer.  Councillor Beesley reported that it was the LGA’s view that the national framework remained the best option for Councils.  Councillor Williams seconded the proposal.

Councillor Butler asked if it was appropriate to commit future Councillors to this arrangement.  Councillor Beesley explained that it was essential that the recommendation was considered this evening on the basis that the Council needs to give due notice.

Voting – Unanimous

The recommendation arising from the Audit and Governance Committee on 2 December 2021 as set out on the agenda was carried.

Item 7e - Cabinet 15 December 2021 - Minute No 97 - Quarter Two Budget Monitoring 2021/22

Councillor Mellor, Leader of the Council presented the report on the Quarter Two Budget Monitoring report as set out on the agenda and outlined the recommendations. He explained that it had been a very challenging year with significant service pressures but highlighted the work undertaken to close the budget gap.  Member were advised that the projection was for a £4m surplus at year end.  Councillor Mellor thanked his Cabinet colleagues and Corporate officers for the work undertaken.  Councillor Broadhead seconded the proposal.

Voting – Unanimous

The recommendations arising from the Cabinet on 15 December 2021 as set out on the agenda were carried.

                                                                         

Item 7f - Cabinet 15 December 2021 - Minute No 104 - Concessionary Fares Bus Operator Reimbursement

Councillor Mike Greene presented the report on the Concessionary Fares Bus Operator Reimbursement as set out on the agenda and outlined the recommendation. Councillor Greene reported that the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme was effectively the way that local Councils pay private operators to compensate them for carrying passengers with bus passes for free.  Members were advised that this was based on the numbers travelling and in a normal year BCP Council would pay around £8m.  Councillor Greene explained that during the pandemic passenger numbers had dropped dramatically and had continued to fluctuate.  He explained that legally this should mean that the amount that the Council was obliged to pay to the bus operators should be reduced accordingly. Members were informed that the Government had kept them afloat with grants and had expected local travel concessionary authorities to maintain payments at pre-covid levels. Councillor Greene reported that as far as he was aware all authorities in the Country had done so and were requested to continue this approach until 5 April 2022.  He reported that the historic reality was without the Council effectively subsidising the bus operators it was highly likely that one or both would fail.  If in an attempt to avoid that situation substantial route reductions were introduced, then page 409 of the agenda pack which contains a diagram on how that would lead to a “cycle of despair” where fewer routes lead to fewer passengers and less chance of viability would occur.  Councillor Greene explained that the Council wants to do what it can within its powers to prevent this and help the bus operators provide the service needed for BCP residents. He reported that with a small reduction in timetabling which had taken place there was a corresponding reduction of approximately £350K in the amount due to pay the bus operators and the recommendation reflects that.  He also commented on the Cabinet paper and the arrangements post 5 April 2022 which suggests a tapering process to wean the bus operators off the subsidy.  Councillor Mellor seconded the proposal and reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Hadley indicated that the Council seemed not to have a choice as it was nationally set whilst highlighting that it was a shame that the opportunity had not been made to introduce cheaper fares and encourage the public to return to using public transport. He also commented on the linear approach. Councillor Greene reported that it was not a legal requirement, and the Council has a choice. He explained that he was recommending that the Council continue with the payment as other local travel concessionary authorities have done and the Council do that at pre-covid levels.

Voting – Unanimous

The recommendation arising from the Cabinet on 15 December 2021 as set out on the agenda was carried.

 

 

 

 

Item 7g - Cabinet 15 December 2021 - Minute No 105 - Housing scheme at Herbert Avenue, Poole

Councillor Broadhead, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Development, Growth and Regeneration presented the report on the Housing Scheme at Herbert Avenue as set out on the agenda and outlined the recommendations.  He referred to the Council New build Housing & Acquisition Strategy (CNHAS), 2021-2026 Strategy that was considered at the last Council meeting which set out the process for housing developments. He explained that due to the ongoing tender exercise for this site, it was not possible to incorporate it into the programmed approach.  Councillor Broadhead updated on the latest tender exercise, the increase in cost and that a local contractor was now on board to bring forward the scheme including 24 new units for families which would reduce the reliance on bed and breakfast. Councillor Rampton in seconding the move reported that the homes would be built to passive home principles which would keep heating costs to a minimum.

Councillor Trent asked about the reference to rents being no higher than local housing allowance which was higher than the rents that were likely to be charged on such houses if they were run by PHP.  He sought assurance on the rent levels.

Councillor Stribley referred to the wording of recommendation 1bi which she indicated did not make sense.

Councillor Le Poidevin welcomed the scheme, she outlined the history of the development and the lengthy timeline.  She referred to the type of units compared to the approved scheme and asked if further planning permission was required. 

Councillors McCormack and Wilson commented on the rent levels and the arrangements for capping.  Councillor Wilson explained the rents would be capped at the HRA rate if the affordable rent was higher.

Councillor Broadhead in summing up explained that he would take away the issues raised by Councillors Trent and McCormack on the rent levels whilst explaining that the cap was an upper limit to ensure that those living in the properties were doing so at an affordable rent level.  He reported that the scheme avoids the need to spend any time in bed and breakfast and highlighted the Council’s approach in driving down the use of bed and breakfast.  Councillor Broadhead reported that the design had been revised to reflect need and his understanding was that further planning approval was not required.  He explained that the scheme had been designed to enable the internal accommodation to remain flexible.

Voting – Unanimous      

The recommendations arising from the Cabinet on 15 December 2021 as set out on the agenda were carried.