Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Jim Clifton, Maxine Dixon (Minute No. LOC48-22/23 only) and Tom Kirkham.

To note any urgent items of business which the Chairman has

consented to being considered under the provisions of Section 100(B)

4(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no urgent items of business to consider.

Members should declare the existence and nature of any Disclosable

Pecuniary Interest and Non Statutory Interest as defined by the

Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of:

a) any business on the agenda

b) any urgent additional items to be considered

c) any matters arising out of those items and if appropriate, withdraw

from the meeting at the relevant time.

There were no declarations of interest made.

To consider the minutes of the last meeting held on 6^th December 2022.

Moved by Councillor Derek Adams and seconded by Councillor Janet Tait

RESOLVED that the Minutes of a Local Growth Scrutiny Committee held on 6^th December 2022 be approved as a correct record.

(Members should contact the officer whose name appears on the List of Key Decisions for any further information).  NB: If Members wish to discuss an exempt report under this item, the meeting will need to move into exempt business and exclude the public in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and Local Government Act 1972, Part 1, Schedule 12a for that part of the meeting only.

Committee considered the List of Key Decisions and items to be considered in private document.

Moved by Councillor Derek Adams and seconded by Councillor David Dixon

RESOLVED that the List of Key Decisions and items to be considered in private document be noted.

The Scrutiny & Elections Officer explained the various documents that had been presented to Members as part of the review.

The Director of Economic Development, Dragonfly Development Limited (DDL), presented a review of Clowne Town Centre Regeneration Framework, acknowledging the Committee’s original review plan to take each town area in turn.  The Framework had originally been commissioned in autumn 2015, and had highlighted a range of public and private interventions that could be made to improve the town centre.

As agreed with Committee, officers had produced a scorecard analysing progress against the various elements of the Framework including in surrounding villages and hamlets.  On reflection, the Framework document hadn’t guided development to a great extent within the area.  Many elements remained undelivered as the document had been aspirational in nature requiring additional buy-in from Town and Parish Councils to engage in the development plans themselves.  Where funding had not been in place, many ideas had been difficult to deliver.

It was noted that the previous Regeneration Frameworks, to some extent, also sat outside a wider strategy for development and there was not a bank of costed projects ready to put forward to support the area.  While the intention of the Frameworks had been to lever investment, the lack of costed projects had made them almost impossible to deliver.  As there was insufficient evidence base within the document, additional research was now being commissioned in order to evidence and cost the projects that could regenerate the town centre.

Of the six core delivery objectives, only one had been completed, with two objectives (4 & 5) in progress but still requiring significant work.  Objectives 1 and 2 required the Clowne Garden Village scheme to progress.  Objective 6 was no longer viable.

Of the Stepping Stone projects, none had progressed.  The officer noted that pedestrianisation of Mill Street had been trialled during the pandemic but local shop owners had not seen any benefits for the approach and were not keen for it to become a permanent arrangement.  While work had taken place on highway improvements, any subsequent work by utility companies had not replicated the surfacing, which had not enabled the works to improve the aesthetics of the highway on Mill Street to have the intended success.  It was also noted that the retail offer within Clowne required improvement to create a greater mix.

In reference to the appendix outlining progress within the surrounding villages and hamlets, the officer noted the following:

• Barlborough – a number of improved walking links, but further work was required in support of objectives 1-3.
• Creswell – 3 out of 5 objectives were either delivered or in progress, with the Heritage and Wellbeing Centre nearly completed, improved tourism through links with the Community Rail Partnership and redevelopment of the Station Hotel.
• Whitwell – improvements around the station due to engagement with the Community Rail Partnership, renovation of the former Co-op building in to flats, and redevelopment of the colliery site expected which will provide housing and a country park area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item LOC48-21/22

The Scrutiny & Elections Officer advised Members of the work completed during the previous scrutiny review and the draft recommendations created.  They also advised of committee reports considered by Executive and Council in the period since the previous review.  They advised Members they would need to consider if any of the previous recommendations identified were still relevant and required either submission to Executive or consideration as part of the current development of governance arrangements for the new company.

A Member confirmed that they believed governance arrangements was dealt with within the new set up, and that it was clear that all projects and the Business Case developments would be presented to Members at Council.  They felt that all governance and communication issues previously identified would be resolved with the new arrangements.

The CEO, DDL, noted that a portfolio of sites proposed for development via Dragonfly had been presented to Council prior to the creation of the wholly-owned company.  These were also noted within the Business Case presented to Council.  They noted that all required monitoring would be catered for within the new governance arrangements and these would be aligned to Council operations which would be more rigorous than the previous arrangements with Robert Woodhead Limited.  They noted that the link with scrutiny was still to be determined but would be accommodated within final arrangements, and further work was to take place on the arrangements for the internal Board.

A Member noted that they felt the original recommendations, identified by scrutiny within the previous review, were now void due to the current situation.  They were aware that the proposed Board would have 7 members and queried how these would be chosen.  The CEO, DDL, confirmed that the company would have to satisfy usual company regulations in relation to the appointment of Board members.  There would likely be 5 internal members made up of Dragonfly management/Council Members and 2 external members likely from within the industry.  It would also be vital that anybody acting as an external member had no conflict of interest in relation to another company with the same remit as Dragonfly.  They also thought it would be possible for any Councillor appointed to remain a Board Member for their specified term, even if they were no longer a Councillor to ensure stability in company Board membership.  The CEO, DDL, noted that their previous experience, whilst as a joint officer supporting the JVC Boards at both authorities of the Alliance, had been mixed due a number of Board membership changes which had resulted in instability.  They felt it was appropriate for Board members to serve for a 4 year period, as a minimum, to enable stability.

A Councillor noted that although Robert Woodhead Limited were no longer involved, the process should still be the same with all reports going direct through Council.  The CEO, DDL, felt the move to a wholly-owned company would enable more prescription over how the company operated.

The Monitoring Officer noted that there was extensive work taking  ...  view the full minutes text for item LOC49-21/22

Committee considered their proposed work programme for 2022/23. 

It was agreed to clarify with the Vice-Chair in relation to one of the proposed items they had originally requested, to establish if the report was still required.  The Scrutiny & Elections Officer noted that the relevant Ward Councillors had been invited to the next meeting for the South Normanton report.

Moved by Councillor Janet Tait and seconded by Councillor David Dixon

RESOLVED that the Work Programme 2022/23 be approved and noted, with proposed agenda items rescheduled where required.

(Scrutiny & Elections Officer)