Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absences received.

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 made.

To consider the minutes of the last meeting held on 29^th April 2024.

Moved by Councillor Will Fletcher and seconded by Councillor Tom Kirkham

RESOLVED that the Minutes of a Local Growth Scrutiny Committee held on 29^th April 2024 be approved as a true and 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.

The Monitoring Officer explained a number of the Key Decisions and Items to be Considered listed had already been completed (e.g., the sale of a property) at a meeting of the Executive the previous day.

After a question on the Roseland Park and Crematorium, the Business Growth Manager confirmed updates would be provided at future Committee meetings.  The Chair stated the changes made had been confirmed at a previous Planning Committee meeting and that the process for the Crematorium would now accelerate.

Moved by Councillor Jeanne Raspin and seconded by Councillor Duncan Haywood

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

The report on the proposed changes to the Council’s Disposals and Acquisitions Policy (the “Policy”) was presented to the Committee.  The Policy set out the processes that would be followed when the Council intended to either sell or purchase property, whether that be land or buildings.  It also included the method for the granting of a lease for a period of more than 7 years.

The Committee was required to consider the proposed changes to the Policy and provide comment prior to submission to the Executive for approval.

The Chair explained text had been changed and updated to reflect administrative changes nationally (e.g., the removal of EU Procurement Rules, etc.) and locally (e.g., new sections added, new members of staff recruited, etc.).  The Policy was in draft form with grammatical mistakes expected at this stage.

A Member noted figure 1.7 of the Policy included Dragonfly Development Ltd. being part of the Asset Management Group (AMG); what was their precise role in this Council interest focussed Group.  The Monitoring Officer explained the AMG was an internal advisory Group consisting of Officers and Members, with no decision making powers.  Those from Dragonfly Development Ltd. were also assisting the Group from a Council perspective.

The Member sought clarity if the recommendations the Group made included the purchasing of construction equipment.  The Monitoring Officer reiterated the Group dealt with land and buildings only, with the Dragonfly Development Ltd. Officers only providing AMG with knowledge and recommendations from a Council point of view.  The Business Growth Manager added that the Commercial Property Team, on behalf of the Council, managed assets with any decisions required being scrutinised by the AMG before then moving to the Executive.  The Monitoring Officer reiterated that the AMG was not a decision making body, with all asset decisions being made by either a relevant Officer with delegated powers or by the Executive.

The Monitoring Officer noted that Annex 1 of both appendixes attached, the Disposal General Flowchart, still needed amending to reflect the changes to the Policy.

The Business Growth Manager asked if a 7-year plus long-term lease should be included as a disposal method listed at figure 8.4.  The Monitoring Officer explained a lease of land would not be classed as a disposal method; that was an effect of the disposal, not a method.

A Member asked, when recommendations were made in consultation with Dragonfly Development Ltd., did that place the Leader of the Council in a conflict of interest position.  The Monitoring Officer informed that the Leader of the Council would have to withdraw if the decision being made by the Executive had a direct impact on Dragonfly Development Ltd., using the example of the sale of assets on Cotton Street, Bolsover by the Executive (the AMG had recommended a sale of these properties by auction with no impact on Dragonfly Development Ltd.).  A declaration of intertest would only be needed if the land and/or buildings being sold was purchased by Dragonfly Development Ltd..

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro  ...  view the full minutes text for item LOC6-21/22

The Business Growth Manager provided a verbal update on the Pleasley Vale Business Park regeneration project.

Little progress had been made since the written report provided to the Committee at the last meeting, though of note were the following:

·       There was a recruitment process following a member of staff moving to the Planning Team;

·       Discussions around the options appraisal for the Gate House lodgers were taking place;

·       The Council was working with West Notts. College to identify opportunities to work with their students on a real-life project;

·       Beaumont Rivers were mobilising works on site with ground clearance along the river course (equipment was being delivered on the day of the Committee).  The Business Growth Manager would continue to update the Committee on this vital work moving forward.

·       The works to repair the damage caused by Storm Babet in October 2023 continued to take place.  This was a lengthy process with the Council working with the insurers, the loss adjusters, the contractors, etc., though the water levels remained significantly high (required investigations had not been able to take place).

The Business Growth Manager noted that Pleasley Vale Business Park was operational, and tenants continued to operate on site; certain surveys could only take place once the water levels had dropped to a safe level.

A Member asked about the Skill Centre agreed several months previously.  The Business Growth Manager explained the works of the Council as the landlord of the site were nearly complete.  Once these works were completed the lease would be formalised and the tenant would take up occupation on site and carry out their own works; an anticipated opening of the Skill Centre was expected September 2024.

RESOLVED that the verbal update be noted.

The Business Growth Manager presented the report to update Members on the activities of the £15 million Regeneration Fund project awarded to the Council in the 2023 Autumn Statement; the fund was for “Place” based regeneration within the District.

Henham Strategy had been appointed December 2023 to work alongside the Economic Development Team to identify and appraise appropriate options around the utilisation of the regeneration funding.  Working alongside the Executive and acting on previous Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) feedback on the District’s Levelling Up Fund round 2 feedback, Henham Strategy had implemented a methodical approach to appraising potential options based on their insight into the bid development process.

Following this work, an Investment Plan had been submitted to DLUHC on 29^th March 2024, setting out the proposals for how the Fund would be directed to best meet the strategic priorities for regeneration of the Place across the District.

The projects proposed had been considered based on their alignment and ability to deliver the strategic priorities within the provided timescale of the Fund (delivery up to 31^st March 2026).  The projects would directly deliver economic, social, and environmental benefits to the District’s residents, businesses, and visitors.

Appendix 1 set out the 8 projects proposed, the financial allocation of each project, and the upcoming key milestones.

The Chair asked, with the UK General Election taking place in July 2024, was this capital secured irrespective of the result in Westminster.  The Business Growth Manager explained no comment, nor any confirmation could be made at this time.  The Council’s position was to await a signed investment plan from the UK National Government and DLUHC; to the day of the Committee, no memorandum had yet been issued to the Council.

A Member noted the report detailed the stakeholder engagement; Mark Fletcher MP for Bolsover had publicly stated he had not been engaged with this, and neither had the Committee in its scrutiny role – who was engaged in drawing up this strategy.  The Business Growth Manager reiterated from the previous Committee meeting that a Working Group of the Executive had been convened to carry out the consultation due to the limited timescale available of the Regeneration Fund; all projects had to be completed before 31^st March 2026.

A Member stated this had been a fraught process for the Council; were there any learnings from this process to avoid any similar issues in the future.  The Business Growth Manager stated it was difficult to know which the issues the Member was referring to, but generally, with the need to respond quickly to this allocation of funding, and the amount of information requested by DLUHC, it would have been unlikely to have been able to prepare and responded more successfully given these circumstances.  The Business Growth Manager listed the following restricted timeframe the Council was working under:

·       The announcement was made in October 2023;

·       The details from DLUHC had not been provided until 16^th January 2024;

·       The Council had  ...  view the full minutes text for item LOC8-21/22

The Director of Property and Construction – Dragonfly Development Ltd. was not available to present the report, but the Business Growth Manager agreed to answer any questions if able.

The Chair noted the Roseland Crematorium was listed, but as mentioned earlier in the meeting this had already progressed through Planning Committee with an increased number of windows and additional design features present (some external cladding had been replaced as the original proved unworkable).

A Member noted the Shareholder Board monitored Dragonfly Development Ltd..  At the previous Committee meeting, there had been no evidence of performance review monitoring in the Shareholder Board minutes provided.  There was also no minutes or report supplied to this Committee meeting; was there no Shareholder Board meeting between the date of the last Committee meeting and this one.  The Monitoring Officer explained there had been no Shareholder Board meeting in that time, but it would have proven ideal if the meeting had taken place before the Committee’s; the next Shareholder board meeting would be taking place later that week.  An update from the Shareholder Board would be supplied to the next Committee meeting in September 2024.  A Member asked if this could be inserted into the Committee’s Work Programme, and the Chair confirmed it could be in the following agenda item.

A Member asked about the current budget of the Roseland Crematorium.  The Business Growth Manager explained the £7.4 million related to the construction cost, not the total project cost, and that value engineering was taking place; it was still predicted there would be profit in year 1 and the burden on the taxpayer would be covered by the revenue from cremations, commemorations, and other income generation schemes of the project.

The Member asked, with regards the review of the business case, could this information be shared with the Council to monitor progress and the viability of the site.  The Business Growth Manager explained it would be included in a report and tabled to the Executive once all information was available.

The Chair noted, after the Executive meeting, that report could be available for the next Committee to provide Members reassurance the project was on target and progressing as expected.  The Business Growth Manager stated certain report submission deadlines meant this may prove difficult to achieve, but the Team would still be pursuing to provide this information to the Committee.  The Monitoring Officer added this would be a Key Decision of the Forward Plan; Members would have the opportunity to scrutinise as individual Councillors or as a Committee.

A Member felt it remained inappropriate to leave it to either a full Council meeting or to call for an extraordinary meeting of the Committee when the mechanism to monitor Dragonfly Development Ltd. was the Shareholder Board; the Member felt the membership of the Shareholder Board should reflect the Council and not be made up of the Executive.  It was asked this be noted in the minutes.

The Chair stated there was one Scrutiny Committee Member now on  ...  view the full minutes text for item LOC9-21/22

The Chair began that, from previous discussions, Dragonfly Development Ltd. Shareholder Board updates would be added to the Work Programme 2024/25 and an invitation would be extended for a Member of the Executive to provide clarity on the choices made with regards the allocation of funding from the DLUHC Regeneration Fund to the Committee at the next meeting.

On a question of the Shareholder Board meetings, the Monitoring Officer confirmed it would be useful for updates to be included at every Committee meeting when available.

The Work Programme, attached as Appendix 1, was also a fluid document and the programme would be subject to change if additional reports/presentations were required, or if items needed to be re-arranged for alternative dates.

Topics suggested by Members were included as Appendix 2, with a further suggestion, provided late to the Committee and so handed out in the meeting, being the following; “Enterprise/industrial zones within Bolsover District – to review their current state of readiness for:

·       Potential new business opportunities, in particular green energy based and other business opportunities;

·       The potential disappearance of significant current active businesses within the enterprise/industrial zones.”

With Sports Direct actively working towards leaving the District, and a new Mayor in position for the East Midlands Combined County Authority area, it was important to explore and promote business opportunities in the area, including the green transition and apprenticeships.

A Member agreed with the third suggestion, stating a third bullet point be added; “Innovative start-ups”.  Instead of inviting established businesses into the District, which was done previously, focus on those already local.  The Scrutiny Officer stated the bullet points listed could be listed as objectives and provide a scope for the Committee’s work.

For a question on how the public could be engaged with the suggested topic, the Scrutiny Officer stated a citizens’ survey could take place and managed by the Improvement Officer, and the Committee agreed Unions and leading business figures be invited to the Committee to provide their respective feedback.

For suggestion 2.1 of the attached Appendix 2,  for a “Review of the Council’s approach to bid writing for external funding”, was intended for when there was external funding available the Council was in the best place to bid for this.  Members agreed this information be shared with Parish Council to help them identify available funding.

The Committee agreed that figure 2.1 be part of the Work Programme for September-November 2024, as it was expected to be a short project, with then the late submission be explored after this.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.