Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms 1 & 2 - Deanes. View directions

Contact: Steve Cummins 

Link: Video recording

Items
No. Item

1/16

Apologies for absence and substitutions

Minutes:

Also present

 

Councillor R Tate – Cabinet Member for Finance, Service Delivery and Improvement

Councillor P Harvey – Lead Signatory

Councillor M Westbrook – Lead Signatory

 

Apologies for absence and substitutions

 

Councillor C Phillimore was replaced by Councillor D Potter

 

2/16

Appointment of Vice-Chairmen

To appoint two Vice-Chairmen to the Scrutiny Committee (one administration and one non-administration) for the 2016/17 municipal year.

Minutes:

Councillor H Golding was appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the committee; and

Councillor I Tilbury was appointed as the Vice-Chairman of Call-in.

3/16

Declarations of interest

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

4/16

Urgent Matters

To consider any items of business, other than those shown on this agenda and which, by reason of special circumstances to be stated at the meeting, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

 

Minutes:

There were no urgent items

5/16

Minutes of the meetings held on 8th March 2016

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 8th March 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

6/16

Call-In - Basingstoke Leisure Park - Proposed Redevelopment pdf icon PDF 70 KB

To consider the call-in of decision - Basingstoke Leisure Park - Proposed Redevelopment - 961/FR

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair introduced the item by explaining the procedure for the meeting.

 

Councillor Potter requested clarification on who would hold responsibility for the decision on the leisure park and the Cabinet member for Finance, Service Delivery and Improvement confirmed he would take this decision forward.

 

The Chair then invited the key signatories of the call-in application to address the committee.

 

The signatories made clear they supported the redevelopment of the leisure park, but wanted to enhance the Cabinet’s decision to ensure that it was the best redevelopment for Basingstoke.

 

The signatories then set out their main concerns over the proposed redevelopment of the Basingstoke Leisure Park to the committee. Their comments included:

 

·                     The signatories support the development of the leisure park but want to enhance and improve the Cabinet decision to ensure any development is right for Basingstoke.

 

·                     The Monitoring Officer’s response to the call-in request included the response that ‘it has not been possible to show that all the relevant risks have been identified, considered and dealt with in accordance with the council’s policy.’

 

·                     Further, the signatories relayed the Monitoring Officer’s response ‘the use of the risk matrix contained within the risk management policy would clearly show this has occurred by pulling all the identified risks in one place with these being dealt with in turn’.

 

·                     The signatories made clear it was the council’s legal officer advising the Scrutiny Committee the risk management policy had not been followed and recommending a risk matrix was produced.

 

·                     The signatories were concerned not enough time had been allowed for the risk register included in the agenda to be properly considered and there may have been risks missing or left out.

 

·                    The signatories then put a proposal to the Chair, to suggest the committee adjourn the meeting to allow the risk matrix included as a confidential appendix to the report to be reviewed by the council’s Internal Audit team.

 

The Portfolio Holder responded there had been an informal discussion between the project team and Internal Audit, who had recommended that advice be sought on the risk matrix from the Internal Programme Board team which was carried out.

 

The committee discussed the proposal considering individual risks to the project, the risk matrix, engagement and consultation, with several members noting that the risk matrix was a working document.

 

The signatories clarified they felt the risk matrix had not been considered by councillors in its current format in a way that risks could be considered in a holistic way and there needed to be an independent assessment of the risks to give the Scrutiny Committee assurance the cabinet decision was sound.

 

Councillor Potter put the proposal to the committee that the meeting adjourn and the risk register included in the agenda be sent to Internal Audit to be reviewed before being returned to the committee to provide assurance.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Keating before being put to the vote.

 

The committee voted on the proposal with five in favour and six against. The proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/16