Agenda item

Report number CHFR96 by the Healthy Environment and Assets and Resources Portfolio Holders.                                   (Enclosure)

DECISION:

(1)           To approve the transfer of the Council’s leisure facilities to a leisure trust for a period of 15 years, or for the period of the leisure agreement which ever is the shorter, subject if necessary to Secretary of State approval;

(2)           Subject to (1) above, to delegate the negotiations on the terms of the transfer, for the venues set out below, to the Assets and Facilities Manager in agreement with the Assets & Resources Portfolio Holder, in consultation with the Healthy Environment Portfolio Holder, and to the satisfaction of the Council’s statutory officers.  The following venues will be transferred by lease:

·         Grantham Meres leisure complex (incorporating the Grantham Meres Leisure Centre and the South Kesteven Sports Stadium)

·         Stamford leisure centre

·         Bourne leisure centre; and

·         The Deepings leisure centre, to be transferred by licence.

Members had before them report number CHFR96 presented to the Council by the Healthy Environment portfolio holder.  This report reminded them that the council had recently gone out to tender for the management of the council’s leisure facilities.  The tenders had been evaluated and a preferred bidder, Leisure Connections, selected.  The two final bidders both submitted tenders on the basis of a leisure management contract through a leisure trust only.  Approval was now sought from the council to transfer the leisure facilities by lease to a leisure trust for the period of the leisure agreement.

Details were given on how the local trust model operated and this required the council to contract with the trust to provide the service (the leisure management agreement) and grant a 15 year lease at a peppercorn of the relevant leisure facilities and land to the trust.  The trust would then enter into a contract, mirroring the leisure management agreement, that passed on all obligations regarding the services to Leisure Connection to act as the trust’s agent.  It was proposed that the local trust can be established within the timescale required by the council for the commencement of the leisure management agreement.  The comments of the monitoring officer, chief financial officer, and relevant service managers were contained within the report.

In commending the recommendations to the Council (subject to two amendments to the wording of part (1) ), the portfolio holder acknowledged the tremendous amount of work done by the Assets & Facilities service manager and his team.  The Corporate Head, Finance & Resources reminded members that the issue before them today was the transfer of property and land under a lease and not the award of the leisure management contract itself which was the remit of the Cabinet within the previously agreed budget and policy framework. 

In opening the debate, the Vice-Chairman of the Communities PDG acknowledged that many members would be aware that the Council’s leisure and cultural facilities was a matter close to his heart; he was mindful of the huge amount of work that had gone into this process and urged the Council to support the recommendations as not only would it benefit from significant savings but the formation of the trust would result in considerable benefits for the community and a better service to the users of the facilities.  Some members expressed concern about the poor performance of the existing contractor who were now the preferred bidder for the new management contract and sought assurances about safeguards to ensure that public complaints could be dealt with under the local trust arrangements.  Other questions were also asked about other financial benefits besides the NNDR relief,  the number of trustees and how they would be appointed, under whose jurisdiction the trust would operate, why was the lease period for 15 years, and what safeguards would be put in place to ensure service standards are satisfactory.

Members were advised by the Corporate Head that any complaints would still be dealt with by the Council’s monitoring procedure in Assets & Facilities through the trust.  The lease would be based on a 15 year period with 5 year break periods as a safeguard because, through negotiation, this represented best value to the Council.  The Council would put in place an agreement with the trust, the terms and conditions of which would be mirrored in an agreement between the trust and the leisure management provider.  There would be 5 trustees but in order to ensure the independence of the trust, the Council representation could not be greater than 20%, so one trustee place would be available for a Councillor appointment.  In terms of other financial advantages, the benefits to the contractor meant the overall cost to the Council could be reduced, and the trust could access sources of funding not currently available to the Council.  The officer acknowledged that there were some risks but these had been carefully measured.  The considerable benefits however could not be achieved without taking these risks.

The recommendations, as amended having been moved and seconded, were put to the vote and carried.

[Councillors Mrs Kaberry-Brown and Helyar had left the meeting before the vote was taken.]

At this point, the meeting had been in progress for three hours and, in accordance with council procedure rule 9, a vote was taken to continue the meeting which was carried.

[Councillor Wood left the meeting at this point.]