|
|
Clissold Scrutiny Review Panel 24 June 2004 This is an edited and annotated version made
before the minutes have been confirmed by a subsequent meeting. Thanks to
“Stoker” for advising me of them. PB Minutes
available from http://www.hackney.gov.uk/clissold-scrutiny-panel-minutes-24-06-04.doc
London
Borough of Hackney Clissold Scrutiny Review Panel
24 June 2004
In Attendance:
§
Cllr. Daniel Kemp (Chair). §
Cllr. James Cannon., §
Cllr. Karen Alcock §
Kim Wright (Director of Community and Leisure
LBH) §
Colin Tucker (Principal Lawyer LBH) §
Andrew McSmythurs (Advisor LBH) §
Chris Reeves (Commercial
Director - Leisure Connection Ltd) §
James Picton (Contract Manager - Leisure Connection Ltd) §
Craig Morgan - Operations Director (Leisure Connection Ltd) §
Malcolm Simpson - Walker Morris Solicitors
for
LC §
Roger Dunlop (Acting Head of Overview and Scrutiny LBH) §
Ben Vinter (Overview and Scrutiny Officer LBH) §
Charlotte Fitzgerald (Press Officer LBH) 17.2.
Order of Business This
was explained to be the final meeting in this series reviewing the closure of
the Clissold Leisure Centre. Those
present were informed that the Panel proposes to defer the discussion on
management of Capital Projects to the autumn when it also aims to look at the
report of the building specialist and the report expected to be going to Cabinet
with recommendations for future action. At
this meeting the Panel has requested that Leisure Connection and the Council
Officers present give a response to the issues that were raised at the meeting
held last week...
19.2 MATTERS
ARISING The
Chair asked that a number of outstanding issues from the previous meeting be
addressed; 1. That
Leisure Connection provide an update on the viability of the suggested
improvements to the West Reservoir Centre. It was suggested that Leisure
Connection respond on this issue at the stage of the meeting when asked to
provide evidence to the Panel... Questions and Answers
20
RESPONSE FROM LEISURE CONNECTION LTD TO ISSUES RAISED. 20.1
The
Chair explained that the Panel had requested that Leisure Connection respond on
a number of issues which had been raised at previous meetings, including the
previous meeting, at which Leisure Connection were not recorded as being
present. 20.1.1
Malcolm Simpson, Solicitor acting on
behalf of Leisure Connection read out an introductory statement, as follows;
Leisure Connection Ltd are in attendance at this meeting with the
intention of being helpful, however they face certain difficulties which they
wish to place on record;
1) Leisure Connection agreed to participate in this review within the
Terms of Reference and not beyond them.
Leisure Connection are of the
opinion that many of the issues raised in the questionnaires go beyond the Terms
of Reference e.g. the frequency and regularity of phones being answered - It was
questioned what bearing this had on the closure of the Clissold Leisure Centre
and its ability to be reopened.
2) An additional constraint upon Leisure Connection’s
engagement with this process was explained to extend to the fact that they had
received a letter from LBH on the day before this meeting (23/6/04), placing
Leisure Connection on notice of a possible claim being made against them by LBH.
Such a notice of intent was explained to have significant implications for
Leisure Connection and his firm’s advice was therefore not to deal with any
issues falling within the terms of reference that may be subject to legal
action.
In addition to this statement the following qualification were also added
- that Leisure Connection remained absolutely satisfied that its obligations
have been fully satisfied. Furthermore
a number of general concerns were raised relating to questionnaire feedback
Leisure Connection suggested were circulated only a few days prior to the
meeting. The usefulness of this documentation was questioned suggesting that it
was based upon anecdotal comments, which Leisure Connection believed to be
totally inconsistent with their contractual monitoring furthermore it was stated
that the source documents had not been presented to Leisure Connection. Criticism of Leisure Connection’s
alleged non attendance at meeting two of this series of meetings (16/6/04) had
been recorded; this was put down to a misunderstanding between LBH and Leisure
Connection
20.2
Questions and Answers
Cllr
Kemp enquired whether Leisure Connection intended to answer any of the questions
set out before them today It was explained that this
remained their intention except where the issued raised may be subject to legal
proceedings… Cllr Kemp reflected that when visiting Kings Hall and
Britannia Leisure Centres unused space had been identified at Kings Hall, with
surplus equipment also located in this area. Could Leisure Connection comment
upon the prospect of this area providing additional gym capacity Leisure
Connection responded by acknowledging that a number of both wet and dry pieces
of equipment were stored in a disused space at Kings Hall. Leisure Connection
intended to bring what was described as ‘the old Kings Hall fitness suite’
back in to use in order to provide additional gym capacity. Cllr Kemp requested that Leisure Connection proceed to
answer the questions put to them in writing in the order that they had been
addressed beginning with why a user group had never been set up at Clissold
Leisure Centre Leisure
Connection stated that prior to the closure of the Clissold Leisure Centre in
the October / November period of 2003 discussions had been held with LBH in
order to set up a user group. Contact details had been provided by the LBH Head
of Sport from which Leisure Connection had hoped to establish a regular surgery.
Cllr Alcock asked for information relating to how
Leisure Connection directed consultation with and engaged users of the Centre Leisure
Connection’s legal representative stated that the Terms of Reference set out
that the Panel wished to establish why the Centre had shut, what had been done
since and what needed to be done for it to be re-opened. Leisure Connection would not be answering questions
falling outside of this remit. Cllr Alcock stated that she was a Ward Councillor in the Stoke Newington area and wanted to
understand how the Centre could be improved in the future Leisure
Connection responded by stating that they ran user group surgeries at other
Centres operated within the Borough and elsewhere. (Not
at Vale Farm to the best of my knowledge. PB).
Customer comment cards are collated and fed into a monthly analysis process. The
analysis reports include randomly selected individual comments, comments from
club representatives, as well as monitoring of performance trends both positive
and negative. From
this analysis an agenda for a surgery will be created and invites dispatched.
The Clissold Leisure Centre process was acknowledged to not have reached this
stage. However as such schemes were run at other Centres operated by Leisure
Connection it was fair to presume that they would wish to establish a similar
scheme at a re-opened Clissold. (Which other centres and if not all centres
what is the basis for choosing those that have user forums? PB)
Cllr Cannon reflected that within the legal position
currently being experienced by all those present, this investigation had two
very important purposes 1) To assess the impact of the closure of Clissold
Leisure Centre on end users and 2) Allowing ‘all sides’ to provide their
side of events. This being the case the Panel had heard numerous views of Centre
users relating to the way the Centre operated and some perceived design flaws,
did Leisure Connection receive
similar feedback from users whilst the Centre was open Leisure Connection’s legal
representative informed the Panel that whilst the company he represented was
present at the meeting to be helpful, LBH, like Leisure Connection now, had
declined to answer some questions due to pending or active legal action. Cllr Cannon observed that at past meetings the Panel
had heard that some facilities available at Clissold Leisure Centre were
unavailable at the alternative Centres within the Borough. What is Leisure
Connection trying to do about addressing this situation
The Panel was advised that Leisure
Connection were not present and had not been invited to previous meetings of
this Panel. Hackney legal representative
responded by reminding Leisure Connection that it claimed it was in attendance,
but its attendance was not recorded. It was accepted that Leisure
Connection had been invited to and were present at the Panel’s first meeting
on 26/5/04 but were not present, as anything other than observers, at the second
meeting of the review on 16/6/04. Cllr Cannon enquired what else had been done to meet
the demand left by the closure of Clissold Leisure Centre Leisure
Connection stated that they believed such information had been provided by the
Director of Community and Leisure at a past meeting but understood that schools
had been contacted throughout the Borough in order to offer them available space
at alternative facilities both in and out of the Borough. It was believed that
such a scheme also included the provision for a contribution to school transport
costs. Numerous
other clubs have also been offered alternative facilities, for example, Martial
Arts Clubs have been offered capacity at the West Reservoir Centre, Gymnastics
clubs have been offered facilities at Kings Hall and those who had block
bookings have been offered remaining capacity at Britannia Leisure Centre. The
majority of progress in this area has been dependent upon the adoption of a
sharing and accommodating approach by all partners and affiliated groups.
However what is beyond dispute is that casual usage has increased over recent
months, as had been alluded to by the Director of Community and Leisure at this
Panel’s first meeting. Leisure
Connection stated that it hoped to further improve facilities and options
available to the residents of Hackney by sitting down with LBH and establishing
what the views of the public are, how to increase levels of service and conduct
and support other projects such as play schemes. Cllr Cannon enquired why Leisure Connection believed
the alternative facilities offered to Clissold based clubs were deemed to be
unsuitable Leisure Connection stated that some
user groups felt that Kings Hall was unsuitable as an alternative for reasons of
cleanliness and had therefore chosen not to accept the offer of using these
alternatives. This point was noted to be something that Leisure Connection did
not wish to get into at the time. Cllr Kemp explained that when visiting Kings Hall and
Britannia Leisure Centres he was made aware of additional facilities being made
available for Hackney’s minority groups The
Panel was advised that Leisure Connection had made efforts to provide increased
levels of access to the minority groups of Hackney, especially the Orthodox
Jewish Community, who the Panel was, advised now used Kings Hall on three to
four evenings a week. Kings Hall now provided male only, female only and child
only swimming sessions, the Panel was also asked to note that for the first time
the Jewish Community had begun attending Britannia Leisure Centre. Why is Leisure Connection not likely to pursue options
for alternatives such as the further development of the West Reservoir Centre The
Panel was advised by the Leisure Connection Operations Manager that for further
development of the West Reservoir site to take place capital investment would
have to be assigned. Leisure
Connection remained unhappy to consider such levels of investment whilst
contractual issues between LBH and themselves were in existence. Cllr Alcock reflected upon a past comment which
suggested increased use had been witnessed at Kings Hall and requested clarity
around usage during peak periods and how swimming time was allocated between
causal users and block bookers. Those
present were advised that Leisure Connection were contractually obliged to
continue all existing bookings (at the same cost with the same time allocations)
attached to the Leisure Centres within the Borough. This causes problems as
difficulties as both facilities are now almost at full capacity. In order to
revise such usage allocation it was and is necessary to enter into long term
negotiations with incumbent groups. An example was provided of where a
relatively small Muslim swimming group was moved, only after extensive
negotiations both with both the club and LBH, from Kings Hall to Britannia
Leisure Centre. Cllr Alcock enquired when it was thought these
discussions would be concluded The Panel was advised that discussions with user
groups relating to allocation of block booked time was an on-going process with
no defined conclusion. Cllr
Alcock stated that Leisure Connection were clearly a big organisation who
presumably had other contracts to operate leisure centres on behalf of other
boroughs, could such contacts not be utilised to alleviate current pressures
within LBH Leisure Connections stated that they have contractual
obligations to fulfil with all their partners including other London boroughs.
The Panel was informed that the nearest London borough in which Leisure
Connection has obtained a contract is Lambeth, which could not be termed a
neighbouring borough. The Director of Community and Leisure indicated that
neighbouring boroughs had sought to support displaced swimmers from Hackney;
some of the schools that have been relocated are presently using facilities in
Islington. It was acknowledged that neighbouring boroughs would in any case be
experiencing issues associated with balancing the use of their facilities
between target groups, schools, clubs and casual users. Cllr Kemp reflected upon an issue
raised at the Clissold Open Day in which a member of the public claimed to not
understand the pricing structures and options available to users of leisure
centres within the borough. The Panel was advised by Leisure Connection that a
number of different options and packages existed for customers of the
borough’s leisure centres, all of which are actively promoted through a
variety of mediums. Membership options were explained to include; ·
Bespoke use fees · Direct
Debit membership, which leads to reduced long term costs for regular users · LBH
Leisure Cards - offering discounted membership, allowing entry on a
concessionary basis. The Director of Community and Leisure added that a lot
of joint working had been undertaken in promoting the Council’s Leisure Cards
in particular targeting under represented groups. Those present were also
informed that the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Leisure, Cllr Khan, has
commissioned a review of pricing, in order to move towards more strategic
pricing allowing the Council to hit its strategic objectives of increasing
social inclusion in the borough. Cllr
Cannon requested information relating to how much usage of the remaining
facilities within the borough had changed since the closure of Clissold. In response Leisure Connection stated that an
indicative figure for the increase in the number of users witnessed would be a
five to ten percent rise across the board. A member
of the public, Jane Taylor, asked about the accuracy of the report from the
Evening Standard relating to the demolition of Clissold Leisure Centre The Chair of the Panel stated that a response from the
Cabinet Member concerned, to such media articles, appears in a copy of the
Minutes from meeting two of the Clissold Scrutiny Review Panel. Cllr Kemp
asked the Director of Community and Leisure whether the Council had any kind of
response it wished to make to the answers or statements made by Leisure
Connection The Panel was advised that the Council had no
questions at this stage, principally owing to the fact that regular meetings
were held between Council Officers and Leisure Connection. Cllr
Cannon stated that he was aware that regular meetings took place between Council
Officers and Leisure Connection and asked what sort of issues were discussed
during these meetings The Director of Community and Leisure informed the
Panel that regular monitoring visits were made to the Centres throughout the
borough operated by Leisure Connection on behalf of the authority. Such visits
help the Council’s Sport Development staff to record performance against the
contract held by the Council, a system is used called RTIX (industry standard)
to record such information, from which reports are compiled. These reports are
then used as the basis for discussions between LBH and Leisure Connection. These
meetings are used in order to highlight successes and to address problems. Targets are
set in a framework project management context for Leisure Connection to perform
against under headings including; the number of sports development sessions,
target sports, sale of leisure cards, availability of facilities, open days,
session for those with disabilities etc. These meetings were explained to
involve James Picton from Leisure Connection, LBH Head of Sport and members of
staff from the Sports Development team. Regular meetings are also scheduled
between LBH AD Culture and Leisure and Leisure Connection’s Regional Director,
in order to shape the strategic direction and discuss other issues such as
capital bids… |
|
|