To receive questions from Members of the Council to the relevant Portfolio Holders for this Scrutiny Committee. The Portfolio Holders reporting to this Scrutiny Committee are:
Councillor Bialyk - Leader
Councillor Vizard - Portfolio Holder Climate and Ecological Change and Communities
Councillor Wood - Portfolio Holder Leisure Services and Physical Activity
Councillor Wright - Portfolio Holder Culture and City Centre Strategy
Councillor Foale - Portfolio Holder Arts, Culture and Tourism
Advance questions from Members relating to the Portfolio Holders above should be notified to Democratic Services.
Minutes:
In accordance with Standing Order No. 20, the following question was submitted by Councillor Wetenhall in relation to the Portfolio of Councillor Wood who attended the meeting. The question was circulated at the meeting to Members of the Committee. The response of the Portfolio Holder for Leisure Service and Healthy Living is set out below:
Question
“Agreeing final measures for Newtown Live and Move project
The report to this committee on the above project states that " The results [of the public consultation] are currently being analysed with a view to sharing with SMB and members before a proposal going to DCC HATOC in July 2025. The scheme is on track for delivery in September. "
But Devon County Council are advertising the draft orders on April 3rd, with public consultation on them running to April 28th. In other words, it appears that decisions have already been taken about the measures ahead of any consideration of the public consultation results or input from SMB or ward Councillors.
Can the Portfolio Holder confirm explain how this has happened and what he suggests happens to reconcile what DCC and ECC are doing?”
Response
Councillor Wood stated that at the joint Devon County Council and Exeter City Council Members Briefing on 15 October it was proposed and agreed that the scheme would progress to consultation and there would be two elements to this, the survey and public engagement events and the formal Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) consultation. It was the understanding at that time that both elements would take place concurrently to form the complete consultation for onward analysis, proposals and decision making. Operationally, the two elements had to run back-to-back.
The advertising of the formal TRO consultation did not preclude further advertisements or adjustments but without taking this forward, it would have required a further decision gateway. The TRO consultation was part of the proposal and decision making which was required to be considered for this scheme to be delivered.
The work was underway to present findings of the public engagement and would also summarise the TRO consultation during May. This would enable decisions to be proposed and made through the ECC SMB and DCC HATOC decision-making processes to enable the scheme to progress to construction in the autumn.
In a supplementary question Councillor Wetenhall asked if the Portfolio Holder could confirm detail of when SMB, ward Members and the Portfolio Holder would see, discuss and approve this. Councillor Wood responded stating that it would be good to deliver this as there had been previous consultations and that the officer would present to scrutiny today and would likely include an answer.
In accordance with Standing Order No. 20, the following question was submitted by Councillor Moore in relation to the Portfolio of Councillor Wood who attended the meeting. The question was circulated at the meeting to Members of the Committee. The response of the Portfolio Holder for Leisure Services and Healthy Living is set out below:
Question
“Please can the following figures be presented to the scrutiny committee in relation to Northbrook Pool.
Cost of planned and responsive maintenance requirements for the next three years.
Expenditure, Maintenance Costs & Projected Increase in Future Repairs”
Response
Councillor Wood stated that looking back over the last three years, maintenance costs were £66,845, approximately £22,000 per annum. Looking forward, after considering the financial sustainability and consultation report, if the Council decided to keep the pool open significant capital works would be required. These would include, works to improve sustainability, reducing energy use and carbon emissions at approximately £850,000. £700,000 would be required to bring the centre up to a reliable and efficient operational industry standard and approximately £450,000 cost to comply with accessibility requirements. Collectively these works would extensively update the building therefore the historic trend of £22,000 per annum maintenance costs may be reduced.
In accordance with Standing Order No. 20, the following question was submitted by Councillor Moore in relation to the Portfolio of Councillor Wood who attended the meeting. The question was circulated at the meeting to Members of the Committee. The response of the Portfolio Holder for Leisure Service and Healthy Living is set out below:
Question
“What costs would be incurred by the Council to cover its closure (redundancy, security while closed etc)”
Response
Cost for decommissioning Northbrook:
Pools - £1000
Gas and domestic water services - £1000
Electrics - £500
Trade waste - £750
Boarding up of reception and office windows - £260
Total = £3510
Staff relocation would be considered following the usual process.
In a supplementary question Councillor Moore asked if these costs had been shared with the community and any interested community groups and whether funding from government had been considered. In response Councillor Wood stated that this information would be included in the minutes of this meeting and swimming pools fund had been approached twice but a commitment to remain open for 15 years was necessary, which was not possible at the time.
In accordance with Standing Order No. 20, the following question was submitted by Councillor Moore in relation to the Portfolio of Councillor Wood who attended the meeting. The question was circulated at the meeting to Members of the Committee. The response of the Portfolio Holder for Leisure Service and Healthy Living is set out below:
Question
“What advice from Sport England or others has been sought to improve viability?”
Answer
In July 2023, Stage 1 of Sport England Swimming Pool Fund bid of £91,193 was requested to support with the prevention of closure due to rising utility costs which was unsuccessful.
In October 2023, Stage 2 of Sport England Swimming Pool Fund bid of £894,400 was requested to support with the installation of PV panels, LED lighting, replace the gas boiler, triple glaze the pool hall, wall upgrade and repair roof and roof lights which was unsuccessful due to the necessity for a 15-year commitment to keep the building open.
In a supplementary question Councillor Moore asked why consultation with the community was only happening now and not two years ago, after the budget decision had been made. Councillor Wood responded that there was a potential decision to be made to make significant savings across the council and so consultation on the impact on users and the community was required at this point. There wasn’t an intention to close the pool until the building of this budget. No community group had approached the Council formally and the building belonged to the Northbrook Trust so any group wishing to take it on would need to consider all implications of doing so.
Questions to the Portfolio Holder for Leisure Services and Healthy Living
Councillor Palmer asked if the pool were to close could the Portfolio Holder give reassurance that schools which use the pool for swimming lessons would not be disadvantaged and that costs wouldn’t increase.
Councillor Wood responded stating that it would be Council who made any decision and schools had been approached. The consultation was available online and paper-based and over 200 hundred responses had been received to date. The consultation was formal, appropriate and in-depth and it would be wrong to predict the results which would inform decision making.
Councillor Atkinson asked how many political parties had responded with an alternative solution and what services funds would come from to enable this.
Councillor Wood responded stating that no plans had been received from any group, political or otherwise and the centre was operating at a loss of £220,000 per year.
Councillor Mitchell stated that the alternative budget proposed no cuts in leisure.