Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council Scrutiny Committee Meeting

Apologies were received from Councillors Carruthers and Golding (maternity leave)

There were no declaration of interest.

Following a decision by Cabinet to adopt the Leisure Park Masterplan, the decision was called-in on the grounds that:

·         The information contained within the report, and/or considered by the Cabinet (or other decision- maker) was incomplete or inaccurate

·         The decision was not made in accordance with the ‘Principles of Decision Making’ set out in Article 11 of the constitution or in some other way appears to give rise to significant legal, financial or propriety issues.

The report presented to the committee addressed the issues raised in the call-in form.

The signatories of the call-in were invited to explain the reasons for their request and what should be reviewed.

As set out in the call-in form they considered that the masterplan lacked vision and ambition which was supported by a motion unanimously agreed by Council to review the plan.  Subsequently the plan was adopted by Cabinet at the same meeting that the motion was considered seeking to review the plan in its current form.  The order on the agenda suggested a decision had been made not to comply with the motion but adopt the plan regardless.  The view that the plan lacked vision and ambition was further evidenced by the lack of detail in the report considered by Cabinet in response to suggestions and options put forward for facilities such as a 50 metre pool, snowdome, multi-use facility and other attractions that could be a regional draw.  The report also lacked detail about improved access to the Leisure Park and how renewable energy could be used to power facilities.  The signatories felt the plan was mediocre and there was nothing new from current facilities.  It was suggested that a task and finish group could be a way that councillors could assist in the process to develop the Leisure Park and make it a better commercial offer.

Visiting speakers were invited to address the committee.

Mr Peach suggested that the regeneration of the Leisure Park could offer new leisure pursuits not currently provided for in the borough which could make Basingstoke a leisure destination of choice.  He gave an indoor skate park as an example of a sport with a number of growing participants where there was currently no indoor safe space for all year round activity.  He highlighted financing high rents for units as an obstacle for organisations and gave an example of where a local authority ran a skate park successfully as part of their leisure offer.  He highlighted that BMX and skateboarding were events recently included in the Olympics which had encouraged young people to take up the sports.  He added that the masterplan showed immense space and opportunity and with council support such activities would add to the leisure offer and put Basingstoke on the map.

Councillor Konieczko felt that the masterplan was a newer version of the current facilities at the Leisure Park and that there had been negative responses by the executive to suggestions for a 50 metre pool, snowdome and multi-use facility. He suggested there should be more creativity to build a Leisure Park that met current needs and those in the future.  He added that the council were not beholden to shareholders but accountable to residents to spend their money in the best interests of the borough.  He felt the council needed to be holistic and look at all of the social and economic benefits its investment in the borough could bring and suggested there had not been any analysis to quantify them and factor them into the decision-making process.  He further suggested there were other viable options to those in the plan that could be considered in their entirety.  Rather than dismissing ideas he would have liked to see information on how much a 50 metre pool would cost to build and run compared to a smaller pool and see a proper feasibility study of a multi-use stadium.  He concluded that the council needed to go back to the drawing board and focus on finding solutions to deliver a bolder and more ambitious Leisure Park for the borough.

Councillor Rhatigan referred to the unanimous council motion to review the masterplan.  He felt the plan needed to be more ambitious, there should be plans for improvement,  scrutiny of the process and review of any contracts agreed.  He considered it important to listen to all councillors’ views as they all wanted a better Leisure Park for residents and engage in discussion on how that could be achieved.  He felt the process to regenerate the Leisure park had taken too long and it was time for action as the Leisure Park was decaying, the lack of cleanliness and closed flumes at the Aquadrome given as an example.  He added there was no reference in the plan to a transport system from the Leisure Park to the railway station and Basing View.  He suggested there should be a vision that would excite people and a plan that would be innovative and exciting to attract people.

Councillor Minas-Bound commented that whilst the plan needed to be adopted to progress delivery, it needed to be flexible to respond to opportunities coming forward so the best mix of attractions in the market could be selected to complement the existing ones.  He acknowledged that the Leisure Park was tired, needed reworking and an injection of new energy and attractions which was being developed.  He stated the masterplan was not fixed but a plan that would change as it was implemented.  He added the plan was built on the current experience of residents and created free and paid for opportunities for all residents.  He felt that not adopting the framework would delay improving and modernising the park to create a regional draw with the latest leisure activities and attractions which would provide broader socioeconomic value.  Delay could result in interested parties investing elsewhere.  He referred to Mr Peach’s comments adding that the masterplan did not exclude an indoor skate park or other activities.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property and officer team were invited to comment and advise the committee on the background and context of the decision and its importance to achieving service priorities.

It was acknowledged that all councillors wanted to maximise the once in a generation opportunity to deliver a new Leisure Park that would put Basingstoke as a regional leisure destination.  Assurance was given that there was no lack of ambition for leisure in the borough.  Clarity was provided that the masterplan was a conceptual document providing a general framework of principles rather than a detailed description of what leisure attractions would go where, with the exception of the Aquadrome, to guide future development.  It was not set in stone and would evolve as developers and operators approached the council.  It was the first stage in preparing a delivery strategy.  

Frustration regarding absence to detail in the masterplan was acknowledged, however it was explained that the framework was a necessary stage to provide interested leisure operators with confidence in the council as a partner and provided a clear outline on the approach to selection criteria, mix and development process in the context of a better layout of public space, car parking and pedestrian access, cyclists and vehicles and policies on climate opportunities for net zero and energy generation.  It was early days in the process of evaluation.

It was clarified that resident feedback from the consultation process was reflected in the masterplan.  Consulting throughout the process with residents and councillors would be an important part of delivering the shared vision. 

Referring to the perception of a piece-meal approach to the masterplan it was clarified that adoption of a plot by plot approach ensured greater council control rather than with one sole developer.  Rather than wholescale development it would also allow the council to work with existing operators to encourage new investment.  New leisure attractions should be market led with the council deciding on the best mix of attractions.  It was re-iterated that nothing had been ruled in or out of the plan with the exception of the new aquadrome.  Business cases would be considered for attractions and facilities such as a multi-use stadium or snowdome.  The facilities suggested in the council motion had been investigated and to date no developers had come forward.  Extensive marketing to attract leisure brands was on going and other attractions and opportunities suggested were being looked at.

The committee were informed that the next stage of the process would involve more in-depth work to look at biodiversity, travel plans, transport assessments, design codes, sustainability and parking management strategy which would be presented to the EPH committee as they evolved. 

The committee asked a number of questions and explored a number of areas with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Property and the officer team. This included discussions about the viability or otherwise of a 50m pool, a snow dome and a multi-use stadium.  The leisure consultant clarified that in relation to a 50 metre pool, a number of in-depth studies to explore the need for water space had been independently reviewed and there was a view that there was a need to increase water space by a small degree.  There was no evidence to support need for a 50 metre pool but a 25 metre pool with six or eight lanes, larger learner pool and some degree of leisure water was the right mix for Basingstoke which would work commercially and deliver maximum socioeconomic added value.  He also clarified that after extensive work a major snowdome developer had responded that snowdomes were no longer economically feasible and they were not investing in them.  Working with specialist advisors in the exploration of a multi-use stadium, the committee were informed that the size of an outdoor muti-use stadium on the Leisure Park would be competing with larger venues and festivals and would probably only attract two concerts a year.  Furthermore there was no market for a facility that would provide a football pitch and outdoor concerts due to the costs and level of risk involved. 

Speakers raised other sports and leisure activities which residents had raised through consultation and otherwise that they would like to see accommodated on the Leisure Park.

The overriding concern of the committee was the communication and engagement between the executive and other councillors and residents. There was a view of some of the Scrutiny Committee, that although there had been a Members Advisory Panel (MAP) to assist the Cabinet member it seemed that there was still a sense of disengagement and lack of inclusion in the decision-making. There was reference to some members of the MAP feeling that they had not been included or listened to.

In terms of communication and understanding the process there was a view that there were some mixed messages where, although it was said by the Cabinet Member that nothing had been discounted for facilities on the Leisure Park, information and research presented to the meeting suggested that some of the other options put forward (the 50m swimming pool, the snow dome and the multi-use stadium) were not currently viable. There was an opinion that residents’ expectations need to be set.

Councillors felt that there was a lack of clarity about the meaning of a “masterplan” and a “framework”. There was discussion about the amount of flexibility there was and how much of it, in relation to plots, was fixed.

The committee explored with the Cabinet Member and officers the balance between the commercial operators who approach the council and having a holistic vision for the Leisure Park which meets the needs of the community as a whole. Equality of opportunity was discussed and a view that the public offer needed to be more than the planned new aquadrome. The committee expressed the view that it was important to be inclusive in meeting the longer term wellbeing needs of the community.

There was discussion about the facility mix for the new aquadrome, whether the positioning of it on a particular plot ruled out other options and how councillors could be involved in those conversations.

There was also some exploration about next steps and the delivery stage.

In order to address the concerns regarding communication, engagement and inclusion, the committee recommended that in place of a MAP which is led by the Cabinet Member, a task and finish group should be established by the appropriate policy committee which would work in parallel with the executive to discuss the opportunities on the Leisure Park and explore the evidence in depth. The committee felt this would offer a level of engagement that councillors would feel confident in.

The committee acknowledged that all councillors and officers wanted the best Leisure Park possible for Basingstoke and that the debate at the meeting had been valuable.

The signatories to the call-in were invited to indicate whether they were satisfied their concerns had been considered.  Councillor Tomblin was satisfied that there had been some explanation and better understanding of the process but felt the presentation of the masterplan had been too early with insufficient detail.  He suggested that the council needed to decide on the balance of council investment and commercial sensitivity.  He felt that the concerns raised had been partially addressed but with the establishment of a task and finish group as recommended by the committee, concerns could be further alleviated.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property thanked councillors and considered it had been an informative and valuable debate.  He acknowledged views concerning the concept of the masterplan/framework and reiterated it was a mechanism to move forward in the selection of leisure operators.  He gave assurance he would work with councillors, operators and residents to ensure a broad level of support to move into the delivery phase of the new Leisure Park.

Following its examination of the decision and detailed questions of those present the Committee decided to refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration.  The Chair summarised the main areas of the committee’s concerns:

·         Communication and engagement

·         Process

·         Meaning of masterplan and framework

·         Setting residents expectations

·         Piecemeal approach

·         Vision

·         Inclusivity

·         Health and wellbeing beyond scope of the leisure industry

Resolved: The Scrutiny Committee

1.     Refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration.

2.     Recommend that a task and finish group be established by the appropriate policy committee to work in parallel with the executive to discuss the opportunities on the Leisure Park and explore the evidence in depth.