Agenda item

Report of the Head of Property and Regeneration

The Head of Property and Regeneration presented the report to Members.

The reporting timeline for the item was questioned as it was noted that the Visitor Economy Plan had initially been considered by Cabinet in November 2019 but had been taken no further until now.  The Head of Property and Regeneration explained that Covid-19 concerns were starting to rise at the end of 2019 and then lockdown measures introduced early 2020 meant that emergency plans were put into place, and reports such as this therefore had to be paused. 

In response to a question, the Head of Property and Regeneration explained that the consultants had suggested the closure of the Ashby Tourist Information Centre as a result of responses received from the stakeholder engagement process. 

A statement was made by a Member on the diminishing tourist interest in Ashby over the last 20 years and it was felt that this was down to the lack of investment in the town by the District Council.  Comments were made that little marketing was done to publicise the town and there was not enough on offer for the public if they did visit.  Reference was made to the thriving market town it used to be and the fact that there would be a stronger need for a tourist information centre if more was done to attract tourists.  The Head of Property and Regeneration acknowledged that visitor numbers were currently low and agreed there was more to be done to improve that, which was the aim of the plan before Members.  However, it was noted that there were other ways for people to get information now, such as on their mobile phones, and this had to be considered moving forward. 

Members were reminded that the report set out four priorities which would inform the plan and the recommendation was to make comment on these prior to consideration at Cabinet.

In relation to the Fathom Consultation report, a comment was made on the very little data available as although the report referred to significant engagement, this was in fact only 10 people.  It was felt there was a lack of partnership working with organisations such as Leicestershire County Council, the museum service, and libraries.  It was pointed out that the tourist information service was more than just a site at the library, staff were very active on social media and had attended Hermitage FM on a weekly basis to publicise events.  The suggestion within the report of cross district working to promote the district was supported but it was felt that it had lost sight of what was needed and community venues such as libraries to work from should be considered.  There was also some concern that the resource required to achieve the proposals may not be available. 

Members felt that the staff at the Ashby Tourist Information Centre did much more than sit and wait for people to come in asking for information.  It seemed that there was an intention to redeploy the staff within the same service area and savings being made were minimal in relation to the cost of running the premises.  Therefore, it was felt that the staff should stay based at the Ashby premises as it was a useful and central location.  

The questions asked as part of the engagement process were queried and it was pointed out there was little engagement with the Ashby business community or the Heritage Society.  The Head of Property and Regeneration referred Members to paragraph 4 of the Fathom consultation report where the consultation questions were detailed.

In response to a query from a Member, the Head of Property and Regeneration assured the Committee that Ashby Town Council had and would be consulted on any further options going forward and that meetings had already been arranged for the near future.

In relation to the four priorities set out in the report, a comment was made that although good priorities, credibility was lost by the proposal to close the Ashby Tourist Information Centre which was the main way that the service was delivered.

Following further discussion about the Ashby Tourist Information Centre, clear opinions were shared, and it was agreed that the committee were unanimously opposed to the proposals to close the centre.   Therefore, it was moved by Councillor S Sheahan that Cabinet be asked to request officers to look at alternative options that did not include the closure of Ashby Tourist Information Centre.  It was seconded by Councillor D Bigby and was put to the vote.  The motion was AGREED.

The Chair thanked Members for their contributions and confirmed that the motion as approved during discussion, and comments made would be presented to cabinet when it considered the report.