To answer questions submitted by Opposition Group Leaders on items on the agenda.
Minutes:
Question from Councillor J Walker to Councillor Brennan.
“Point 7.1.4 of the officers’ report states: If the operator is unable to retain memberships through lack of group exercise offering or is unable to generate income from the maximisation of the asset, they are likely to seek a review of the contract management fee or look to the local authority to support their losses in other ways.
How will the Council ensure that it protects taxpayers’ money in its negotiations with the operator, during the transition phase following the opening up after Covid?”
Councillor Brennan responded by stating that the issues raised in the question would only come into play if the recommendations in the Rushcliffe Arena Facilities report being considered this evening were not approved, and advised that by approving the recommendations, it would mitigate the need for any lengthy negotiations or transition period, to allow a quick conversion of the facility at a relatively modest cost. That would quickly generate activity and would ensure that no further changes to the leisure contact would be required. However, by way of assurance, Councillor Brennan advised that the Council had a robust contract management framework in place, and this had been augmented during the pandemic by moving to an open book arrangement whereby the Council reviewed information on usage and financial performance on a monthly basis. Furthermore, the Council had worked with Parkwood to critically review and challenge its recovery plan and forecasting to ensure that ‘best value’ for the taxpayer was being achieved from both a leisure delivery and financial perspective. The Council had also utilised support offered by the Government via Sport England to provide an external assessment of the Parkwood Recovery Plan, which had helped to provide further assurance. Those arrangements would continue during the transition and recovery period and would flow into the new contractual terms as reported to Cabinet in January 2021, which again have been the subject of robust negotiations and demonstrated how the Council was constantly working to ensure best value from its leisure operator. Public leisure services had faced significant financial and operational challenges as a result of the pandemic, causing in some areas unprecedented damage to local facilities. The Local Government Association and ukactive continued to urge the Government to provide additional support to the sector. Rushcliffe had not been immune to those pressures, and the Council continued to work very hard to deliver its Leisure Strategy ambitions and to protect taxpayers’ money.
Councillor J Walker asked a supplementary question to Councillor Brennan.
“Will the losses referred to be actual or projected losses?”
Councillor Brennan responded by stating that the point being referred to in the financial implications section of the report would be the consequence that might arise if the mitigating factors did not take place, therefore, if the recommendations were approved this evening, those issues should not occur.
Question from Councillor Jones to Councillor Brennan.
"How is it that the other centres listed in the report can provide bowling facilities when, despite its large number of residents over retirement age, Rushcliffe has failed, and plans to waste its investment in the Arena bowling facility?"
Councillor Brennan responded by stating that although Rushcliffe had a large number of residents over retirement age, that did not necessarily mean that they would take part in indoor bowling, and the declining membership of the Rushcliffe Indoor Bowls Club, highlighted that despite the large number of retired people in the Borough, the Club was unable to retain or attract new members. The recommendations in the Rushcliffe Arena Facilities report would ensure that the facility better aligned to the Council’s Leisure Strategy and would offer greater value for money for the Borough’s residents by ensuring that the facility was used more often and by all age groups. Concerns over usage had first been expressed in May 2014, when the report to Cabinet had recognised that membership and usage was declining and that an alternative use might be required. Despite the Council’s best efforts to support the Club to increase membership, that had not occurred, and the Council would be negligent if it did not pursue alternative usage strategies for the benefit of the whole community. The other local facilities referred to were created on different business models, and therefore direct comparisons could not be made, for example, the others were generally purpose-built indoor bowls facilities, which were fully utilised with leagues and competitions all year round, whereas in Rushcliffe many bowlers preferred to switch to playing outdoors in the summer months, which left the hall unused. In addition, members of the Rushcliffe Indoor Bowls Club committee had stated that other venues provided scope for more attractive social activities, including a bar, refreshments and spectator viewing facilities.
Councillor Jones asked about the equalities monitoring of facilities.
Whilst not a supplementary question, Councillor Brennan responded by stating that an Equalities Impact Assessment had been undertaken and advised that a recommendation in the Rushcliffe Arena Facilities report was that officer would be working with the operator to mitigate the loss of the facility in its current format by ensuring that alternative activities would be available for people of all demographics and abilities.