Agenda item

The Shopmobility Future Options report will be published in a suppementary pack for this meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Assistant Director Community and Housing Services presented the report and in doing so informed the Committee that the Redditch Shopmobility Service customer visits had declined since Covid-19 and had never fully returned to the 15,000 customer visits each year that the service used to have; the customer visits now were approximately 3,000 per year.

Members’ attention was drawn to the 5 possible future operating models for the service, that Officers had considered; with a 6^th option of no longer providing the service, as detailed on pages 8 and 9 of the additional papers 1 agenda pack.

The Vice-Chair commented that the opportunity to move the control of the service to Kingfisher Shopping Centre had been considered quite a while ago, why was this not Option 1 now?

The Assistant Director Community and Housing Services referred to Option 4 – The service was to transition to Kingfisher Shopping Centre and the one-off cost implications, of £54,000, to transfer the service. To move the service to a retail unit provided the opportunity to promote and expand the service. The other risk associated would be that the Council would lose control of the service and that Kingfisher Shopping Centre could decide that they did not want the service.

The Vice-Chair queried as to where was the public consultation, and that only 83 people had completed the survey, this was not a public consultation.  With regards to the survey, 69% of respondents said maybe or no, when asked’ If the location of Redditch Shopmobility was to move to be within the Kingfisher Centre, would this help make the service more accessible?’.

The Assistant Director Community and Housing Services informed Members that an Equality Impact Assessment had been carried out.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Services and Regulatory Services stated that the survey undertaken was one of things that Officers were looking at. The current service was not being properly promoted.  It would have been nice to have had a larger survey, however, the survey did show that customers needed this service. If the service were moved to a retail unit within the Kingfisher Shopping Centre, this would provide Officers with an opportunity to promote and expand service.

The Assistant Director Community and Housing Services added to move to a site within the Kingfisher Shopping Centre would provide the opportunity to promote the service, review hours and staffing/opening times; with further opportunity to promote an assisted shopping service and delivering scooters to customers waiting in the Kingfisher car park or bus station. Staff occasionally took scooters out to customers, but this was not possible on a regular basis at the current site in Car Park 3; due to the Council’s Lone Working Policy, which meant that for health and safety reasons, two members of staff were required for every shift at the current site. 

Members referred to the cost implications, as detailed in the report, of moving the service to a retail unit within the Kingfisher Shopping Centre, as follows: -

·       The first-year cost of improving the facility and service cost would be approximately £125,000.

·       The future annual cost to the Council would be approximately £107,000.

·        

In comparison the report showed that Kingfisher Shopping Centre would require the Council to purchase 5 new scooters, this would equate to a one-off cost to the Council of £54,000 if the service were to transition to Kingfisher Shopping Centre; as detailed in Option 4 (page 9 of the additional papers 1 agenda pack).

In response to questions from the Committee, the Assistant Director Community and Housing Services explained the Councils current staffing levels to run the service.

Members further commented that it was a regrettable situation with a lot less customers accessing the service, but also with Kingfisher Shopping Centre struggling to draw people in. However, most shopping centres had similar schemes to shopmobility for accessibility for all customers. It was important to have such a service, but with declining customer numbers using the service, there was a need to monitor how the service was used going forward.

Members further commented that they liked the idea of delivering scooters to customers in Kingfisher Shopping Centre car parks and the bus station, however the quality of the scooters needed to be ‘top notch’ thereby reliable. Providing good equipment and promoting the service could draw customers in. The Council had a responsibility to make the Town Centre accessible. The Council’s social responsibility was different to the social responsibility of Kingfisher Shopping Centre. This was highlighted in the report, which showed that the direct running cost of the service was originally 50:50 between the Council and Kingfisher Shopping Centre. This was capped at £40,000 for 2009/10, with a further reduction in 2010 to £30,000 per annum. The Kingfisher Shopping Centre then provided the accommodation at a peppercorn rent and covered the cost of utilities. This changed in July 2024 and the utility bills were now the responsibility of the Council. The Kingfisher Shopping Centre had also changed ownership and were looking to reduce costs.

Some Members therefore felt that Kingfisher Shopping Centre had no desire to fund or run Shopmobility going forward. If the Council retained the service, it would retain control. However, as mentioned during the course of the debate, there was a need to review the service after an appropriate period of time.

Some Members felt that Kingfisher Shopping Centre would not want the service to go as it was also beneficial to them, with non-residents of the Borough also visiting the shopping centre.

Members further commented that people using the service did not only use it to access the shopping centre, but they also used the service to access appointments in the Town Centre, e.g. Doctors appointments. Members needed to consider what was best for the residents.

In response to the Chair, the Assistant Director Community and Housing Services informed the Committee that 70% of users of the service were residents of Redditch. There was no viable option to change to a ‘Tap and Go’ credit card system and staffing costs were a huge inhibitor for the voluntary and community sector (VCS), so no interest had been expressed o run the service.

The Vice-Chair asked if the possibility of some people purchasing and transporting their own scooters had also added to the decline in numbers of customers using the service.

Following a very lengthy debate the Vice-Chair proposed an Alternative Recommendation in that Members considered Option 4 - The service was to transition to Kingfisher Shopping Centre; this was seconded by the Chair.

On being put to the vote, the Alternative Recommendation was lost.

In response to the Chair, the Assistant Director Community and Housing Services explained that 5 new scooters may not be enough and that eventually all of the existing equipment would need modernising. During peak times, the 5 new scooters could be as a minimum requirement with a clear booking system being put in place.

Members sought clarification on some of the suggestions made during the course of the debate, and what they were be asked to vote on.

The Democratic Services Officer clarified that Members had suggested that the following caveat / conditions be applied: -

• that the Shopmobility Service be reviewed after an appropriate period of time.

• that the Portfolio Holder for Community Services and Regulatory Services and the Assistant Director Community & Housing Services look at the possibility of reducing the costs to the Council, by scoping if a retail unit is needed and if the Shopmobility Service could be run by volunteers.

With Members in agreement, and on being put to the vote, it was  

RECOMMENDED to the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE that 

1)    Redditch Borough Council provide the Shopmobility service from a rented retail unit within the Kingfisher Centre as set out as Option 3 in the report; and

2)    The caveats / conditions as detailed in the preamble above, be included.

RECOMMENDED that

3)    The additional costs of £46,835 the Shopmobility Service in 2024/25 are met from balances; and

4)    The ongoing position be integrated with the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2025/26 process to reflect the additional ongoing costs of £28,835 thereafter.

(During the consideration of this item, Members discussed matters that necessitated the disclosure of exempt information. It was therefore agreed to move to exclude the press and public prior to any debate of exempt matters on the grounds that information would be revealed which related to the financial and business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)However, there was no exempt information in this record of the debate)