Meeting documents

Two nominations were received for the appointment of Chairman, Councillor Gillard and Councillor Adams. Upon being put to the vote it was

Two nominations were received for the appointment of Deputy Chairman, Councillor Adams and Councillor R Holland. Upon being put to the vote it was

Members considered the report of the Director of Services providing them with an opportunity to explore the implementation of regeneration schemes in Coalville.

The Group was reminded that planning permission was granted for two regeneration projects in Coalville town centre in 2010 and 2011. The first of these permissions related to outline planning permission to Tesco on 7 May 2010 with reserved matters approval being given on 28 January 2010 which provided until 28 January 2013 for the commencement of development. The second related to the Belvoir Centre for which full planning permission was issued on 22 April 2010 with a standard three year start date which provided until 22 April 2013 for commencement.

Representatives from both Tesco and Threadneedle [Belvoir Centre] were invited to attend the meeting and it was acknowledged that no response had been received from Threadneedle. Three representatives from Tesco were in attendance and they were invited to introduce themselves and provide Members with an update on the current position.

Mr Raistrick reminded Members that Tesco had not become involved in the application until 2009 and, due to circumstances beyond its control, outline planning permission was not granted as soon as they would have liked. Issues including a challenge by Belvoir had stalled the project resulting in outline planning permission not being issued until 2010. Architects then drew up reserved matters in conjunction with the Council's design officer and the pre-application work took longer than anticipated with approval finally being given in January 2011. Since this date, work has been going on behind the scenes including engaging with the County Council on highways matters and working on the pre-commencement planning conditions.

Mr Lowe reported that one of the biggest tasks facing them at present was the acquisition of the land. There are 12 land ownerships of which four have already been acquired. It is hoped that the majority of these will have been completed by the end of the year. It was noted that negotiations had already taken place with Ford with an agreement in place and it was hoped that all the agreements would be signed by January 2012. That said, Ford then have a two year period to enable them to find an alternative site so, until Tesco has vacant possession, they are not able to undertake any architectural or site investigations. Mr Ford summed up by advising that the project was moving forward, albeit not as quickly as they would have liked.

Members were invited to ask questions.

In response to a question from Councillor Adams, Mr Lowe advised that the Board had not yet specified an anticipated opening date. The aim would be for Christmas 2013 or Easter 2014 but this would be largely dependent on the vacant possession requirements of the site which may take some considerable time.

Councillor Richichi sought assurances that there would be no issues regarding the land acquisitions and was advised by Mr Lowe that he did not foresee any, other than the possibility of delays due to Ford finding alternative premises. It was confirmed that all the other landowners were in agreement.

In response to questions from Councillor Clayfield regarding the three year implementation date and traffic management issues, Mr Lowe advised that the target was for 2013 although they accepted that they may need to seek renewal if, for any reason, this target date could not be met although he considered that works would have commenced by this time. He also reported that the aim was to keep any traffic disruption to a minimum but could not give absolute assurances on the level of any disruption until the Section 278 agreements had been finalised.

Councillor R Holland raised concerns about the lack of any progress reports and sought assurances that Tesco would be willing to return to give an update to Members at a future meeting if requested to do so. Mr Lowe gave this assurance and acknowledged that they had not been too good at keeping local people informed but did explain that he also did not want to make promises he could not keep.

The Chairman invited Councillor Legrys, Ward Member for the Coalville Ward, to speak on this item.

Councillor Legrys thanked the officers for their hard work in trying to engage with the developers on this issue and welcomed the representatives from Tesco for attending the meeting to give an update to the Group. He expressed his disappointment that no representatives from Threadneedle were in attendance. He also expressed his concern that Threadneedle had seemingly walked away from the project and reported that his group would be pushing for a compulsory purchase order for the site and that he was aware that negotiations were taking place regarding the withdrawal of the planning permission as it was preventing any other development. He asked the Chairman for support from his group and suggested that they meet to discuss the way forward in terms of the current Threadneedle application.

Turning to Tesco, Councillor Legrys stated that there had been a lot of glitzy promotion yet the site was looking derelict and was not good for Tesco's image. He castigated them for leaving the sites open to trespass and vandalism and asked that some preventative measures be put in place. He asked that some action be taken to notify the residents, even if it was simply a poster giving details of the current position.

Councillor Legrys summed up by asking the Chairman if both sides could work together to remove any further obstacles and allow the developers to get on with the project.

The Chairman thanked Councillor Legrys for his comments and endorsed the working together of both sides.

The Group was asked to consider any items to be included in its work programme for consideration at future meetings. No items were raised.

Members considered the report of the Head of Community Services which consulted them on the proposals within the Leisure Centre efficiency review.

The report proposed savings of at least £130,000 which included some staffing implications. These were set out in detail in the report. Members were asked to consider the report and make comments for Cabinet's consideration.

John Richardson, Head of Community Services took Members through the report and invited comments on each of the key areas.

- Changes to the Management Structure.

Councillor Clayfield raised concerns that the bandings referred to in the report were meaningless without reference to salaries and terms and conditions and sought assurances that future reports would make this clearer. Mr Richardson gave these assurances.

Councillor Richichi sought clarification on the issue of redeployment and the potential number of job losses. He also asked for details of the costs associated with the work carried out by Wigan Leisure Trust.

Mr Bambrick responded by explaining that the Council's Employment Stability Scheme enabled staff who had been placed 'at risk' to seek employment elsewhere in the organisation in posts which had already been budgeted for. Mr Richardson confirmed that the recommendation saw the loss of three posts and the creation of one; and the cost of using Wigan Leisure Trust's services was £7k, thus confirming that the net saving was £123k and not £130k. In response to a question by Councillor Meynell, he also went on to advise that Wigan Leisure Trust was a market leader in this field with a very good reputation. Furthermore, they were not in close proximity to our own services and therefore did not pose a threat.

Councillors Neilson and Adams expressed concerns regarding the lack of supporting material to accompany the agenda which they considered was essential if the Group was to scrutinise effectively. Councillor Neilson referred specifically to the report by the Wigan Leisure Trust and the Equality Impact Assessment.

A discussion ensued on this topic and it was acknowledged that the papers were available upon request. The Chairman agreed that all papers should be readily available but it was accepted that due to the size of some of these documents, they may be made available in electronic form. It was also acknowledged that should the meeting wish to reconvene to consider these additional documents in detail, the timetable for implementation would have to be reconsidered as the matter was scheduled to be considered by Cabinet in November.

Councillor R Holland urged Members to consider the report before them and concentrate on the task in hand regarding the modernisation of services, how they are currently managed and whether this could be done more efficiently.

Councillor Neilson sought assurances from officers that there would be no capacity issues following the proposed restructure and he was given these assurances. He also asked that consideration be given to the effect on local communities as he felt that the proposed measures were in danger of alienating specific groups of people.

Mr Richardson advised Members that Wigan Leisure Trust had in fact proposed more job losses than those being considered and it was hoped that by broadening the range of services provided by the leisure centres, this would engage a new customer base.

- Focus on Health and Fitness.

Councillor Clayfield asked in what ways more people could be attracted to the facilities? She advised that women exercising adds to their feeling of wellbeing and the increase in childbirth figures should also be taken into account.

Councillor Neilson asked for specific information from the Equality Impact Assessment [EIA] in terms of those who would be most affected by the proposals. Mr Knight reported that the EIA had identified that females would be the most adversely affected. There was one known parent with a disability and five users on means tested benefits. If the proposals were approved, the officers would work closely with those affected to identify alternative childcare facilities.

- Commercial Activities and Events.

Councillor Clayfield asked for clarification on the room hire for large events and Mr Richardson advised that staff would work with the organisations to seek their requirements and design a package to suit their needs.

- Operation Cost Savings.

Councillor Clayfield asked for clarification on the subsidy figure in relation to the creche.

Mr Richardson confirmed that this figure was based on staffing costs against income. A significant amount of analysis had been undertaken on the usage which has seen a year on year decline on numbers. In the last 12 months, 4,800 visits had been made by 260 children. 23 children on average use the creche once a week or more. The Council will work to identify alternative childcare provision but has not been too proactive in this regard to date as it does not want to pre-empt the outcome of Cabinet's decision. Staff will try and negotiate the best costs when signposting people to alternative providers.

Councillor Neilson considered that more should be done to promote the creche.

Councillor R Holland raised the issue of age ranges at the creche as it was acknowledged that there were alternatives available due to government initiatives on childcare for children over the age of three. She asked that the age breakdown of the children using the creche be made available for the Cabinet meeting. Councillor Holland welcomed the 'learn to swim' initiative.

Councillor Richichi sought confirmation that the dance studio at Hood Park was well used and that there was a market for the extension of this service at Hermitage Leisure Centre. It was confirmed that in order to cater for the demand at Hermitage Leisure Centre, more classes had to be scheduled which was less cost effective. The attendance rates at the dance sessions was largely dependent on the craze at the time e.g zumba classes are very popular at present.

- Service Improvements

Clarification was sought from Councillor Adams on the extent of the consultation with stakeholders and was advised that they had been consulted from the beginning with flyers having been handed out to customers. All staff had been consulted as too had the Trade Unions.

Councillor Saffell asked what level of certainty existed in achieving the proposed savings particularly in respect of the £60k operational costs and the £16k for commercial activities. He was advised that £50k of this would be saved from the closure of the creche and another £10k from a change in the opening hours, some of which had already been saved. It was accepted that the £16k was the most at risk but there were currently interested parties and negotiations with these could be pursued once Cabinet had made its decision.

Councillor Clayfield asked who would be commissioned to do the feasibility study for the invest to save scheme and at what cost. She was advised that this had not yet been commenced but every effort would be taken to ensure it was done cost effectively.

The Chairman thanked all Members for their input and advised that all the comments would be passed to Cabinet to assist in its decision on 15 November.