Agenda item

Leisure and Cultural Services Business Case

 

Members noted a number of matters during a lengthy debate in respect of the Leisure and Cultural Services Business Case, including the following:

 

·                The Options Appraisal, considered at a previous Council meeting, which had led to Members selecting a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) as the preferred model of service delivery.

·                The feedback that had been received from residents in relation to the different options for service delivery, which had highlighted a desire for services to meet the needs of the community and for there to continue to be some Council involvement.

·                The recommendations on this subject that had been proposed at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 5^th March.  It was confirmed that the Executive Committee had deferred making a decision on these recommendations, so these needed to be determined by Council.

·                On the one hand some Members raised concerns that the recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny, particularly in relation to the Shareholders Committee, were premature and would be more suitable for discussion alongside the detailed business plan in July 2018.

·                On the other hand other Members suggested that the recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would enhance the Council’s authority over the LATC and ensure that this operated in line with good business practices.

·                The previous work undertaken by the Provision of Leisure Services Short Sharp Review in 2015, which had concluded that provision of services by a Trust, would be the most appropriate service delivery model for the Council moving forward.

·                The leisure centres in other parts of the country that had been visited by the scrutiny group.

·                The work that had subsequently been undertaken by relevant officers and the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Tourism, which had included visiting further leisure centres across the country.

·                The model of service delivery for Leisure and Cultural Services that had been adopted by neighbouring authorities in Worcestershire.

·                The relatively recent change to rules in respect of TECKAL companies.

 

Council Housing Allocations Policy 2018 Update

 

Following the Executive Committee meeting held on 6^th March 2018 Officers had, at the request of Members, undertaken some research in respect of the potential implications of the policy for kinship carers.  Based on this research Officers had concluded that it would be appropriate to include reference to kinship carers in the policy and they were therefore proposing an additional amendment to paragraph 32 of the policy.  The proposed additional amendment to the policy was tabled for Members’ consideration at the meeting and this amendment was as detailed in the box below:

 

 

 

 

32.      KINSHIP CARERS

Kinship Care is an arrangement where a child who cannot be cared for by their parent(s) goes to live with a relative or a family friend. Those applicants who are kinship carers will have the child added to their application providing that they have official parental responsibility or are confirmed Kinship carers by Children’s Social Care.

 

There was general consensus amongst Members that this amendment to include reference to kinship carers should be included in the policy.

 

Polling Places Review

 

Members discussed the polling places review in some detail and during this debate a number of issues were raised:

 

·                The difficulties with providing adequate parking to voters at the locations that had been identified as possible alternative polling places in polling districts CHB and WIB.

·                Accessibility problems with some of the alternative venues that had been identified as potential sites for polling stations and the difficulties that this could cause for elderly and disabled voters.

·                The impact of using Willow Trees Children’s Centre as a dual polling station on both children and parents.

·                The Motion on Notice considered and agreed by Worcestershire County Councillors at a Council meeting at County Hall on 25^th May 2017 which had called for alternative sites to schools to be used wherever possible as polling stations.

·                The difficulties encountered by schools when they needed to be closed on election days and the disruption that this could cause to both pupils’ education and to their parents.

·                The use of portacabins as polling places in other parts of the Borough and the potential to replicate this arrangement in polling districts CHB and WIB.

·                The potential for residents to vote by post and the value of promoting postal votes in order to minimise the need for parking places close to polling stations.

 

One Public Estate

 

The recommendations in respect of the One Public Estate arising from the Executive Committee meeting held on 6^th March 2018 were proposed by Councillor Bill Hartnett.  In proposing these recommendations Councillor Hartnett explained that this formed part of the Borough’s 10 point plan for economic development.  The documents provided outlined initial ideas at an early concept stage and there was much more work still to be undertaken.  The initial plans had been worked up over a period of 18 months.  The Place Partnership Ltd had produced initial ideas and, whilst Redditch Borough Council was taking a lead, a number of partner organisations had been engaged, including Worcestershire County Council, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service, various branches of the NHS and Homes England.  Subject to approval of the proposals detailed in the report, any of the ideas that were investigated further and found to be suitable would be the subject of consultation.  A range of outcomes from this work were possible but the intention would be to utilise assets in the public realm to enhance the vitality and viability of Redditch town centre.

 

Councillor Greg Chance seconded the recommendations arising from the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 6^th March 2018.  In doing so he advised Members that the proposals had received support from a wide range of partner organisations.  Further investigation of the proposals detailed in the Town Centre Regeneration Prospectus and One Public Estate exercise would support work on regenerating the town and enhancing economic development in the Borough.  The suggested public sector hub could serve as a civic centre, though much more work was needed before any final decisions could be taken on the regeneration package moving forward. 

 

Early in the debate in respect of the One Public Estate report an amendment was proposed by Councillor Juliet Brunner.  This amendment was seconded by Councillor Brandon Clayton. 

 

The amendment read as follows:

 

“Recommendation 1

 

The sum of £50,000 be allocated to further explore the following established concepts for the town's regeneration.

• Develop a feasibility study to bring forward costed proposals and options for the town centre's Regeneration Prospectus
• Ensure that the study contains plans for full consultation along the timetable with both citizens and all members
• Authority to be delegated to the Chief Executive to manage this budget in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning,?Regeneration, Economy and Transport and the Leader of the Opposition

Recommendation 2

• Redditch local authority to be the principal means of support for the single public estate review report

Recommendation 3

• Any proposed business case mandated to include exploration of multiple alternative sites and uses for: the Town Hall, Council Administration Facilities, and Leisure and Culture provision. A detailed, costed business case should set out the strategic, commercial, economic, financial and management options for each proposal
• Final decision to be taken by Full Council following the consideration of a detailed business case by Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
• That further work in respect of the Town Centre regeneration prospectus and one public estate review be scrutinised to enable all members to-participate in decision making

Recommendation 4

• This council recognises the changing economic climate and will initiate State of the Area Debates to engage with partners, businesses and the public with a view to creating a strategic shift in the response to regeneration of the local economy and to agree the actions the council and others could put in place to drive local economic recovery. This to ensure the widest possible consultation.”

In proposing the amendment Councillor Brunner advised that she felt an amendment was needed due to her concerns about the level of consultation that had been undertaken in relation to these proposals to date, particularly in respect of elected Members’ involvement.  The proposals detailed in the amendment would require detailed exploration of the various options for the regeneration of the town centre and for the findings to be outlined in business cases, consultation with affected stakeholders and further exploration of the options available by a scrutiny Task Group, which would enable greater Member involvement in the process.

 

Councillor Brandon Clayton, in seconding the proposals detailed in the amendment, commented that this would be a measured approach to regenerating the town centre, particularly as these changes could impact for many years to come.

 

Members subsequently discussed the amendment in detail.  During the debate Members discussed the extent to which the existing Town Centre Regeneration Prospectus and One Public Estate documentation provided sufficient detail and whether the additional work suggested in the amendment was necessary at this stage in the process.  Reference was also made to the potential for Overview and Scrutiny, the Economic Theme Group and the Planning Advisory Panel to investigate the matter and the need to avoid causing any delays to progress. 

 

Reference was also made to the potential use of £50,000, which featured in both the original and amended recommendation 1.  The amendment called for this funding to be spent on specific tasks whereas the recommendation from the Executive Committee called for this funding to be spent on exploring further the proposals outlined in the Town Centre Regeneration Prospectus.

 

Following further debate the amendment was put to the vote and was defeated.

 

Members subsequently moved to discussing the original proposals from the Executive Committee in respect of the One Public Estate.  During discussions about the matter the following points were raised:

 

·                The need for regeneration to take place in Redditch town centre.

·                The concept of a public sector hub and the proposed location of this on Church Road.

·                The impact that this hub could have on footfall in both this part of the town and on Alcester Street. 

·                The potential conversion of Redditch Town Hall into residential units.  Members noted that this was only one option for the disposal of the building should a public sector hub be introduced in the future.

·                The occupancy rates in the apartments located in Threadneedle House. 

·                The suitability of residential properties in the town centre for those who did not drive or who had mobility problems.

·                The impact of more residential properties in the town centre on the availability of parking spaces.

·                The extent to which elected Members and other stakeholders would be consulted about the proposals moving forward.

·                The potential for the impact of the Redditch ring road on access to the town centre to be addressed as part of the work on regenerating the town centre.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 17.5, the recommendations from the Executive Committee meeting held on 6^th March 2018 in respect of One Public Estate were the subject the following named vote:

 

Members voting FOR the resolutions:

 

Councillors Joe Baker, Natalie Brookes, Debbie Chance, Greg Chance, John Fisher, Andrew Fry, Bill Hartnett, Pattie Hill, Mark Shurmer, Rachael Smith, Yvonne Smith, Jenny Wheeler, Pat Witherspoon and Nina Wood-Ford.

 

Members voting AGAINST the resolutions:

 

No Members voted against the resolutions.

 

Members ABSTAINING on the resolutions:

 

Councillors Tom Baker-Price, Roger Bennett, Juliet Brunner, David Bush, Michael Chalk, Anita Clayton, Brandon Clayton, Matthew Dormer, Gay Hopkins, Jane Potter, Gareth Prosser, Paul Swansborough and David Thain.

 

Accordingly the resolutions were approved.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1)        the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee held on Monday 19^th February 2018 be received and adopted;

 

2)        the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee held on Monday 6^th March 2018 be received and all recommendations adopted subject to:

 

in respect of Minute 115 (Leisure and Cultural Services Business Case) the recommendations proposed on this subject by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a meeting held on 5^th March 2018 be rejected; and

 

in respect of Minute 118 (Council Housing Allocations Policy 2018 Update) the inclusion of information about Kinship Carers, as detailed in the box provided in the preamble above, be added at paragraph 32 to the policy.