Issue - meetings

The Scrutiny & Elections Officer outlined the Call-In process and proceedings to take place.

The decision by Executive had been called in by Scrutiny Members, Councillors Tom Kirkham, Tricia Clough and Derek Adams.

Councillor Tom Kirkham questioned why Proposal 1 had been chosen as the preferred site for the Future Skills Hub. He stated that in his opinion, Proposal 2 was the better option and that the officer’s report indicated that this site would have a bigger impact. He requested more clarity of the decision made by Executive.

Councillor Tom Kirkham read out a message from Councillor Derek Adams, a signatory of the Notice of Call-In Request, commenting on the need to create a relationship with providers (as per Proposal 2) that were willing to develop post-16 education provision within the District.

Councillor Tricia Clough, a signatory of the Notice of Call-In Request, requested further clarity and commented that the larger premises in Proposal 2 could offer more educational and funding opportunities. She felt that the Council should remain cautious and that care would need to be taken to ensure that partnership links were made with those offering the best outcomes. She welcomed the opportunities being made available in relation to the training on offer which could be accommodated at the site in Proposal 2. She asked that the Executive reconsider its decision.

Scrutiny Members heard evidence from the Executive Director of Strategy & Development, the Assistant Director of Development & Planning and the Portfolio Holder for Growth/Economic Development.

Members raised further questions to which the Executive Director for Strategy & Development, the Assistant Director of Development & Planning and the Portfolio Holder – Growth/Economic Development, replied.

The signatories again summarised what they considered the positives and negatives were of the two proposals and why they consequently felt the decision should be reconsidered by Executive.

Scrutiny Members concluded that based on the evidence presented there was sufficient evidence that Executive should reconsider their decision as the proposal chosen did not offer the range of outcomes desired.

Moved by Councillor Jim Clifton and seconded by Councillor David Dixon

RESOLVED that the matter be referred back to Executive for reconsideration, as based on the issues raised in the Call-In, the evidence presented and Member considerations, the Scrutiny Committee finds:

·         there was lack of clarity in the original report with the reasoning for the decision unclear;

·         the option chosen provided more limited outcomes, most notably the lack of Post-16 provision, and did not meet the wider objectives of Vision Bolsover;

·         there was lack of consultation and wider oversight with Members outside of Executive, with the opportunity for pre-decision scrutiny not taken;

·         that Proposal 2 within the original report is considered to be the better option offering greater opportunity to achieve key objectives within both Vision Bolsover and the Business Growth Strategy and would urge Executive to reconsider and amend their decision accordingly

(Executive Director of Strategy & Development/ Assistant Director of Development & Planning)