THE actions of BCP Council leaders have been slammed as “disgusting and despicable” over failing to attend a scrutiny meeting and trying to close down questioning of the controversial beach hut sale plans.
Furious opposition councillors on the corporate and community overview and scrutiny committee slated the administration for a lack of communication on what was happening with the proposal.
No members of the Conservative administration were present at the meeting, much to the frustration of some committee members.
Several councillors said they were only finding out what was going on through reports in the Daily Echo.
As reported, the beach hut special purchase vehicle (SPV) proposal could be halted, with the circa £50million funding gap for transformation funded through Government-approved borrowing instead.
No extensive details behind either option have been made public yet, however, council leader Cllr Drew Mellor has said he hopes to gain clarity on the Government’s position from Secretary of State Greg Clark MP before the autumn.
The overview and scrutiny committee meeting on Wednesday evening was due to dissect a report on the SPV – a wholly or majority-owned council company that would buy the beach hut stock off the local authority.
At the end of last week, with the report still not published, members were told it had been agreed to consider the subject at a later date. It was planned that no councillors would attend the scrutiny meeting and it would therefore be inquorate.
- Read more: BCP Council beach hut sell-off report will not be presented
- Read more: Where is BCP Council report on beach hut sell-off?
Committee members still gathered on Wednesday night despite correspondence from the council leader and chief executive.
Conservative councillor David Kelsey proposed adjourning the meeting as soon as it came to the agenda item for the SPV, saying: “There is no point in us sitting here if we don’t have an agenda to listen to.”
This move was seconded by the deputy chair of the committee and Conservative member Cllr Roberto Rocca.
However, before the vote on this motion took place, several councillors dished out scathing comments on the situation.
Cllr Mohan Iyengar, Poole Local member, told the committee he had phoned the Daily Echo to thank the newspaper for being able to inform him what was going on over the past week.
He said going forward there needed to be more communication from within the council.
Cllr Iyengar said: “I think there is something about treating people with contempt, our taxpaying residents around all of this and there is something that can be significantly improved about the way this procedure is operating, notwithstanding the difficulty of this proposal.”
Committee chair Lawrence Williams, Conservative, said he hoped he had not treated any members of the public with contempt.
“I certainly wouldn’t have that intention,” he said.
“I am very grateful that they have taken the trouble to be here and to write in and give statements.”
Liberal Democrat councillor Sandra Moore called for residents to be kept in the loop, adding that it was clear the plans had changed but there not been any “proper communication”.
Labour group leader Cllr George Farquhar said it was disappointing that Cllr Kelsey had tabled his motion so swiftly.
“The reason it is disappointing to hear that is because to reflect other speakers here tonight is that I am hearing as a councillor and a group leader from the Echo policy and direction from this administration,” Cllr Farquhar said.
“I am also hearing from the Echo what’s actually happening at this committee. It is happening, is it not happening and so on and so forth.
“I sympathise fully with Cllr Iyengar that no councillor and no member should be treated in such a way that they have to pick up the phone to the local press to understand whether or not their services are going to be required to scrutinise the administration.”
Cllr Farquhar said the lack of attendance from the leadership “flies in the face of the reason we have overview and scrutiny committee".
He added that is was disrespectful to the committee and members of the public.
“We heard a statement (from a resident) tonight and I will read a section out which struck me for a concerned resident that has the right to have their concerns heard," Cllr Farquhar said.
“’As a mother of two boys under 11 living in a small two-bedroom flat and working locally, our beach hut is our outdoor space – it is our outdoor space – and we are therefore very keen to protect it and have the opportunity to comment properly on any proposed changes.
“The suggestion that has been put about that this meeting be cancelled or it be made inquorate so that effectively it is cancelled is disgusting.
“Disgusting and it is despicable and the reason it is disgusting and despicable is because there is a mother of two boys whose outdoor space is a beach hut and this meeting was conveyed specifically to talk about the plans to actually move those beach huts into an SPV and effect directly this resident.
“To propose that this meeting would be cancelled so that public issues would not be heard - I am disgusted.”
Cllr Stephen Bartlett, the former chair of the overview and scrutiny committee prior to a contentious restructure, said the change in direction to borrowing would have resulted in the beach hut paper being withdrawn.
“We only have a report in the Echo,” said Cllr Bartlett.
“Now we do have senior officers here that are working alongside the leader and other people in this matter.
"I think it would be entirely appropriate to ask if we can have any information regarding that change in direction.
“Is it a figment of somebody’s imagination on the editorial staff at the Echo or is it fact because if it is fact then we don’t need to worry our residents about the effect on beach huts too much any longer because it is a completely different way of funding transformation.”
Cllr Williams replied: “I don’t see that we can rely on the Bournemouth Echo for information.”
The committee chair said this was what Cllr Bartlett was doing, which the Independent councillor denied.
Cllr Bartlett said: “With respect chair there was a tweet from the portfolio holder for regeneration on Sunday which actually let the cat out of the bag about a change in policy.”
Cllr Vikki Slade, Liberal Democrat, said she was “disgusted” that no one from the administration had attended the meeting. While she said she could accept a need for all the papers to be ready and presented together, there were questions that needed to be answered.
The former leader of the council said it was “almost incredible” that the leadership was confident the plans could be signed off by Government in the summer recess.
She said she wanted to recommend that Cllr Mellor prepare an emergency budget as the current budget could come “tumbling down and therefore it would be imprudent for us to wait another six or eight weeks before we know what is going to happen”.
No vote was ever taken on this recommendation as Cllr Kelsey’s motion was already on the table and it was passed meaning the meeting was called to an end without a vote on Cllr Slade’s proposal.
Earlier in the meeting, responding to a question from resident Daniel Parkin around the existence of a report by KPMG on the beach hut plan, council democratic services officer Claire Johnston said: “KPMG has supported the work with the securitisation of beach hut income.
“The relevant reports will be made available as part of the pack of information presented alongside the officer report to the corporate and community overview and scrutiny committee.”
On why it has not been published to date, Ms Johnston said: “It is important that any reports from KPMG are seen in the context of the formal officer report, be that to the corporate and community overview and scrutiny committee or to cabinet.”
Cllr Slade asked for clarity if the responses to public questions were from the leader or officers. It was confirmed by monitoring officer Susan Zeiss that they were prepared by officers.
Ms Zeiss said Cllr Slade would have to ask Cllr Mellor if she wanted an answer to her question.
Ian Lawrence, of Lowther and Milton Homewatch, who asked several questions at the meeting, said the move to use “opaque” SPVs exposed the council to “non-transparency” criticism.
He said the overview and scrutiny board had been undermined by “one-party domination” with fewer meetings and it being split into two committees.
In a public statement, resident Alex McKinstry said the SPV would see the beach huts “shuffled out of reach for 20 years” and not disposed of as required in the flexible use of capital receipts guidance.
He said he hoped any further “creative transactions” involving council assets are “strongly discouraged”.
A statement by a “bewildered” resident said there were mixed messages and a lack of transparency from the council leadership.
During the meeting Cllr Williams referenced on several occasions that the meeting to discuss the plans would now take place on September 2 and he sought confirmation from committee members that this was acceptable.
Following the meeting there were suggestions this was incorrect and it would actually take place on September 5.
A spokesperson for BCP Council said: “No specific adjournment date was agreed at last night’s meeting, this will be notified when agreed with the chair.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel