MINUTES OF AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE ......2004/08/04 · Minutes 268 (part) to 271; Councillor James – Minutes 269 (part) to 271.) 262. WELCOME Having postponed starting

159

MINUTES OF AN

EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE ARUN CIVIC CENTRE ON 4TH AUGUST 2004 AT 6.29 P.M.

Present:- Councillors Mrs. Kelly (Chairman), Squires (Vice-Chairman), Biss, Mrs. Bower, Bower, Brookman, Mrs. Brown, R. Brown, Butcher, Butler, Church, Mrs. Coleman, Cosgrove, Mrs. Daniells, Dendle, Dingemans, Dyball, Gammon, Mrs. Goad, Mrs. Hall, Harding, Haymes, Mrs. Hazlehurst, Hill, James, Lury, Mrs. Maconachie, Matthews, McDougall, Mrs. Oakley, O’Neill, Parris, Patel, Rankin, Rose, Mrs. Squires, Steward, Dr. Walsh, Mrs. Warr, Wilby, Wilde and Wingrove.

(Note: The following Members were absent from the meeting during consideration of the matters referred to in the Minutes indicated:- Councillor Butler – Minutes 262 to 267 (part); Councillors Lury, McDougall, Mrs. Maconachie and Mrs. Coleman – Minutes 262 to 268 (part); Councillor Mrs. Warr – Minutes 268 (part) to 271; Councillor James – Minutes 269 (part) to 271.)

262. WELCOME Having postponed starting the meeting because of the serious road traffic accident on the A259, the Chairman welcomed Members, Officers, members of the press and public to the meeting. 263. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME A written question had been submitted concerning the work underway to explore the Leisure Trust route and on the Statement of Accounts. As the questioner was not present at the meeting, the Leader of the Council agreed to provide a written reply. 264. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Dixon, Elkins, Northeast, Mrs. Olliver, Oppler, Scutt, Stainton, Mrs. Stainton, Tyler, Wells and Weston and Honorary Aldermen Mrs. Morrish and Mrs. Stinchcombe.

160 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04 265. MINUTES The Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14th April 2004 were approved by the Council as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, including the note on page 106 in relation to Minutes 166 and 132 (Leisure Trusts). 266. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Mrs. Daniells declared a personal interest in Motion 1, paragraph (4) and Motion 2 (paragraph (3) as the Council’s representative on Age Concern. 267. PROCEDURE FOR THE MEETING Before the Motions were introduced, the Chairman referred Members to relevant procedural guidance provided for the meeting. Firstly, the Chief Executive’s letter of 26th July 2004 which had set out the purpose of the meeting and, secondly, a note from the Solicitor to the Council. The Solicitor’s guidance note, which had been circulated at the meeting, referred to the three motions before the Council meeting on 14th July 2004, none of which had been proposed and seconded at that meeting and therefore in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.4 (Page 108), they had to be treated as withdrawn and could not be moved without fresh notice. No notice had been received by the Chief Executive for any of the three motions to be included on the agenda for this meeting.

Minute 853 of the 18th February 2004 provided that the Leisure Trust Working Party should complete stage 2 and report back to Scrutiny and Cabinet. There had been no requirement for the Working Party, Scrutiny or Cabinet to report to Full Council. However, decisions relating to Leisure Strategy were policy decisions which had to be taken by Full Council.

The note explained that even though the three motions were not being presented, Members could debate all the same issues that they would have debated had any one or all of the three motions come before them and, Members of the Working Party and Scrutiny Committee could speak to the motions on the Agenda in the same way that they would have done had they been reporting to Full Council.

The Solicitor had also referred to the two motions before Members at this meeting, which were in effect alternatives. If Motion 1 was carried, Motion 2 would fall and no debate would take place at this meeting on Motion 2. The Solicitor had recognised that it might seem long winded and repetitive but it

161 Extraordinary Council

Meeting 04.08.04 was appropriate for Motion 1 to be debated as if it was the only motion before Members. If Motion 1 was lost, then it was appropriate that Motion 2 was fully debated and Members could if they wished speak on issues that had already been debated for Motion 1. Members noted this advice. 268. MOTION 1 Councillor Cosgrove then moved the first motion as follows:

“The Council, recognising the work achieved by the Leisure Trust Working Party and also the work identified as yet to be undertaken;

And recognising that the aim of the Council is to produce the best value solution for future leisure provision based on the existing Council leisure services and their development and improvement; Agrees that: 1) the work undertaken so far on the Leisure Trust route should be further developed, supports the agreement of the Working Party that an IPS model is preferred should the Trust route be adopted, and broadly agrees the services that would be transferred to the Trust and those to be retained as identified by the LTWP, the Cabinet and the ER&L Scrutiny Committee, but also agrees that other solutions to individual provision should not be ruled out if these solutions provide better value; 2) there also should be parallel work on exploring:

a. Management by existing Trust and Commercial operators b. Devolution to other authorities c. Seeking economies within Leisure as a means of achieving the desired annual savings and that, if the task is too great an additional burden to the LTWP, the Economic Regeneration and Leisure Scrutiny Committee be respectfully requested to consider taking on this work as a matter of urgency; 3) expressions of interest in running leisure services be invited from existing leisure trusts and from commercial providers as a matter of urgency so as to test the climate;

162 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04

4) the transfer of the Laburnum and Tamarisk Day Centres to an organisation such as Age Concern be explored, with a view to achieving operational savings with long term commitment to a minimum level of core funding; 5) the offer of a local business to take on responsibility for the running of, and to invest £40,000 in running the Birdman Rally for 2005, and an option for 2 further years, be explored as a matter of urgency; 6) the various options be subject to rigorous risk analysis and to financial, management, and human resource implication comparison; 7) the Head of Finance prepare a Report for the Cabinet as to the implications for the financial situation of the Council should the target date of 1st April 2005 for implementation of a Trust or any other solution be missed, and possible remedial action that could be required; 8) if a later date than 1st April for the implementation of a preferred solution is found to be needed, the Council will consider approval as necessary of supplementary estimates of no more than a total of £150,000 and in tranches of not more than £25,000 for any calendar month, and that the Head of Finance be requested to identify any possible savings within Leisure to help cover this contingency; 9) communication must be maintained with West Sussex County Council/ Felpham Community College over the inclusion of the Arun Leisure Centre in a Trust, and on any other proposed solutions; 10) as certain elements of the Leisure Trust Working Party’s Terms of Reference still remain to be undertaken, the Leisure Trust Working Party continues to meet to establish a project plan for implementation of the Trust to include the preparation of a 5 year financial plan, size of Trust Board and make-up and reporting arrangements; and that its Terms of Reference be amended to include responsibility, at the appropriate time and should the Leisure Trust emerge as the best value option, for advertising/appointment of Shadow Trustees (with appropriate consultancy support);


Meeting 04.08.04

11) the Head of Finance be requested to prepare a financial model for grant funding to a Trust based on the services agreed to be included by the LTWP for consideration at the next meeting of the Leisure Trust Working Party; 12) further discussion takes place with interested parties on the future of the Windmill Theatre, including the Littlehampton Town Council and the Windmill Action Group.”

In presenting his motion, Councillor Cosgrove referred to the reason for this extraordinary meeting which he believed was because some Members had tried to push a decision on the Leisure Trust route through too quickly at the last meeting. He asked all Members to be independent in taking a view as this was such an important issue to the community. Councillor Cosgrove believed that the Trust route was the correct way to proceed. He was a great supporter of the Leisure Trust principles but would want to see further work done on examining all the options before a decision was taken. He also referred to the letter that had been received by Councillor Northeast, Chairman of the Economic Regeneration and Leisure Scrutiny Committee from a private organisation interested in the Trust option which had been reported to the Leisure Trust Working Party. Councillor Cosgrove did not believe that his motion would stop the work being done but would give the Council more time to explore the options. If all this work could be concluded by 31 March 2005 then he would welcome this. However, he believed the Council needed to have a clear answer by 31 March 2005 on whether the Trust route was to be pursued and, if it was not possible to establish this from 1 April 2005, then the Council must have contingency plans in place. He asked what contingency arrangements had been put in place to meet the budget deficiency that would arise if the Trust route was not agreed by 31 March 2005. In concluding, Councillor Cosgrove believed that the Council now needed to get on with this work so that the right outcome could be achieved. He asked Members to support his motion. The motion was then duly seconded by Councillor O’Neill. In responding to the motion, Councillor Dingemans apologised to the Council for the problems at the last meeting caused by the failure to second the motion. He was also sorry to have two different motions before the Council as the Group Leaders had met to agree one motion bringing together the three sets of recommendations from the last meeting as they had been so similar. However, the Labour Group had then put forward an alternative motion, which now being considered.

164 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04 In referring to the motion, Councillor Dingemans felt that this was contrary to many of the recommendations of the Leisure Trust Working Party. He believed that if the motion was agreed, it would delay the Leisure Trust process for up to two years which he felt was unacceptable. Councillor Dingemans believed motion 2 should be supported which was based on the recommendations of the Leisure Trust Working Party. He also raised his concerns at the financial implications of accepting motion 1 as a whole. He asked Members to reject motion 1. Councillor Dr. Walsh then proposed an amendment, which had been circulated at the meeting, to:

• Para 1 : omit “the Cabinet and the ER&L Scrutiny” and show as printed below

• Para 2 and 3 : combine to make new para 2, as below in bold and revise subsequent para numbers

• Para 5 : revise as at para 4 below in bold, which is to be substituted for original para

• Para 6 : revise as para 5, with addition as shown in bold below: “prior to any final decision being implemented”

• Para 10 : revise as para 9 below, by substitution of “make up” with “composition”

• Para 11 : add “and should not be included in the Leisure Trust unless all parties agree”

The amended motion would read:

“The Council, Recognising the work achieved by the Leisure Trust Working Party and also the work identified as yet to be undertaken; And recognising that the aim of the Council is to produce the best value solution for future leisure provision based on the existing Council leisure services and their development and improvement; Agrees that: 1) The work undertaken so far on the Leisure Trust route should be

further developed, supports the agreement of the Working Party that an IPS model is preferred should the Trust route be adopted, and broadly agrees the services that would be transferred to the Trust and those to be retained as identified by the LTWP but also agrees that other solutions to individual provision should not be ruled out if these solutions provide better value;


Meeting 04.08.04

2) There also should be parallel work on exploring other

solutions such as:

a. Management by existing Trust and Commercial operators

b. Devolution to other authorities c. Seeking economies within Leisure as a means of

achieving the desired annual savings;

and that expressions of interest in running leisure services be invited from existing leisure trusts and from commercial providers as a matter of urgency so as to test the climate;

3) The transfer of the Laburnum and Tamarisk Day Centres to an organisation such as Age Concern be explored, with a view to achieving operational savings with long term commitment to a minimum level of core funding;

4) Special events should remain under the aegis of Arun District

Council. Any offer from local business to take on responsibility for the running of the Birdman rally for 2005, should be explored as a matter of urgency;

5) The various options be subject to rigorous risk analysis and to financial, management, and human resource implication comparison, prior to any final decision being implemented;

6) The Head of Finance prepare a Report for the Cabinet as to the implications for the financial situation of the Council should the target date of 1st April 2005 for implementation of a Trust or any other solution be missed, and possible remedial action that could be required;

7) If a later date than 1st April for implementation of a preferred solution is found to be needed, the Council will consider approval as necessary of supplementary estimates of no more than a total of £150,000 and in tranches of not more than £25,000 for any calendar month, and that the Head of Finance be requested to identify any possible savings within Leisure to help cover this contingency;

8) Communication must be maintained with West Sussex County Council/Felpham Community College over the inclusion of the Arun Leisure Centre in a Trust, and on any other proposed solutions;

166 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04

9) As certain elements of the Leisure Trust Working Party’s Terms of

Reference still remain to be undertaken, the Leisure Trust Working Party continues to meet to establish a project plan for implementation of the Trust to include the preparation of a 5 year financial plan, size of Trust Board and composition and reporting arrangements; and that its Terms of Reference be amended to include responsibility, at the appropriate time and should the Leisure Trust emerge as the best value option, for advertising/appointment of Shadow Trustees (with appropriate consultancy support);

10) The Head of Finance be requested to prepare a financial model for

grant funding to a Trust based on the services agreed to be included by the LTWP for consideration at the next meeting of the Leisure Trust Working Party;

11) Further discussion takes place with interested parties on the future

of the Windmill Theatre, including the Littlehampton Town Council and the Windmill Action Group and should not be included in the Leisure Trust unless all parties agree.

In presenting the amendment, Councillor Dr. Walsh referred to the problems at the last meeting with three sets of recommendations being proposed which he recognised would have made the process difficult to understand. He believed it was important for a Working Party set up by the Council to report back to it. He was proposing this amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group who believed this was the best way forward. His Group believed that the Council should explore other solutions that might offer more competitive arrangements for the Council. The amendment proposed changes on the arrangements for special events as his Group believed these should remain under the control of the Council. The Liberal Democratic Group was concerned that an inexperienced Trust operation might not be able, or willing, to take on events such as the Bognor Birdman. His Group were also aware that there had been an offer from a local business to support this event, which they felt should be explored. The other key change being proposed referred to the Windmill Theatre, and Councillor Dr. Walsh stated that his Group did not feel that the Theatre should be included within the Leisure Trust unless all parties agreed. Their concern was that if the Theatre was transferred and continued to operate at a loss, then it might face closure in the future. Councillor Dr. Walsh hoped that Members would look at the merits of this amendment and give it their support.


Meeting 04.08.04 The amendment was duly seconded by Councillor McDougall. In response to the amendment, Councillor Cosgrove and Councillor O’Neill as proposer and seconder of motion 1, stated their agreement to its contents and that they would accept their motion being amended on this basis. In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.7 (page 111), the Chairman asked Members if they were happy to proceed with the debate on the amended motion 1, rather than debate the amendment in isolation. Members were all agreeable to this course of action. The debate then moved onto the amended motion 1. In discussing its contents, there were a number of Members who felt that the motion could not be accepted. Some were concerned at the delay this could mean to pursuing the Trust route beyond 31 March 2005 and the budgetary implications this would have for the Council. The motion was proposing that alternative options were explored to the Trust route and it was pointed out that the Leisure Trust Working Party had looked at a number of other options and had agreed its recommendations as the best way forward. It was felt by some Members that to start exploring other options at this stage, as suggested in the motion, would put an inordinate strain on officer resources and would impact on the deadline set of 31 March 2005. It was also felt important that a decision was taken within a clear timescale to reduce the uncertainty for the staff and users of the leisure facilities. Reference was also made to the Consultants report which had advised that a period of 6 to 9 months was a reasonable timescale to work to. A number of Members felt that motion 1 should be rejected and motion 2 accepted as this was generally based on the original recommendations of the Leisure Trust Working Party. This would allow the setting up a Shadow Trust that would act completely independently of the Council and it would be open to this Trust to explore all the options, which it was felt was the right way forward. The opportunities that Trust status could give to Leisure Services were also highlighted which it was felt would bring greater benefits to all its users. The proposed exclusion of the Windmill from the Trust was also not seen by some Members as the best way to secure its future as it was felt that the Trust would in fact bring benefits and greater flexibility to its future running arrangements.

168 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04 In response to concerns about pushing the Leisure Trust route through too quickly, reference was made to the Best Value Review of Leisure undertaken in 2001/2002. One of its recommendations had been to explore the establishment of a Leisure Trust within its five year action plan. There had also been further guidance issued since the review had been concluded which encouraged local authorities to develop initiatives of this nature. The Cabinet Member for Leisure responded to the question asked about contingency arrangements should the Leisure Trust route not be agreed by 31 March 2005, and referred to the report to be considered at the Cabinet Meeting on 16 August 2004 which set out what the impact would be and highlighted which areas within Leisure Services would face savings. The Cabinet Member urged Members to reject the suggestion of any delay and assured them that the Working Party would continue to look at other options as part of its continuing work. Other Members spoke in support of the amended motion believing that the delay would allow more time for all the options to be fully explored. This was not because they were against the principle of a Leisure Trust but because they were concerned at the timetable being worked to. In supporting the amended motion, a number of Members were deeply concerned at the implications of including the Windmill Theatre within the Trust and cited the example of the Alexandra Theatre at Bognor Regis as highlighting the impact such a decision could have on the Theatre’s future. It was felt that the lessons that had been learnt from this example needed to be taken into consideration as part of the deliberations of transferring the Windmill Theatre. As few Trusts appeared to have Theatres included, it was felt that this area needed further exploration before the decision was taken to include it in the Trust. Including the staging of special events was also an area of concern to some Members as it was felt that the Council did this well and it would unwise to pass this responsibility over to a Trust. Special events were seen to bring many benefits to the District and it was felt that the amount of time and effort needed to stage them might result in a Trust being unable to sustain this work. There was also some concern at the inclusion of the Day Centres and it was felt that further exploration was needed on their transfer to a more appropriate organisation, such as Age Concern. Further support for the amended motion referred to concerns that Scrutiny had not been sufficiently involved in the process with a Working Party being set up to take the work forward. By agreeing the motion, these Members felt that there would be a longer timetable to explore the full implications and respond to the concerns that many Members had about


Meeting 04.08.04 whether the Trust route was the best option and would achieve the objectives that had been set. Opposition Members’ views were that the amended motion was not a delaying tactic but rather it would give an opportunity to get this right. Although some Members could recall the Best Value Review of Leisure undertaken in the previous administration, the current work had only begun 8 months ago and it was felt this was now being pushed forward at some speed. In taking the Leisure Trust route forward, reference was made to the work of the Working Party and what would be the next stage of its discussions. It was felt that a financial model was needed to help in its deliberations and it was suggested that rather than avoid delay by agreeing to the amended motion, it might be possible to set up more meetings of the Working Party to take this work forward but still meet the proposed timetable of 31 March 2005. At this point in the debate, the Chairman requested an adjournment to allow the Solicitor to prepare advice on the question of Councillor Dr. Walsh being allowed to speak again as he had already spoken as the proposer of the amendment. The Solicitor’s ruling was that the amendment had now become part of Motion 1 and that the Constitution did not allow for the Member to speak again in this instant. On the basis of this advice, the Chairman ruled that Councillor Dr. Walsh could not speak again which he accepted. Councillor O’Neill then spoke as seconder of the amended motion responding to a number of the comments made by Members. He believed that further evidence on how other Trusts had been set up needed to be provided before any decision could be taken and, on this basis, that the proposals in motion 2 were not sufficient to taking these explorations forward. Councillor Cosgrove then exercised his right of reply as the proposer of the amended motion and also responded to the comments made by Members. He still felt that he needed more information on the contingency plans in place if the deadline of 31 March 2005 could not be met. He also referred to his concerns for the staff and welcomed the involvement of UNISON in the process. (In referring to UNISON, Councillor Cosgrove declared a personal interest as a member of UNISON.)

170 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04 Before moving to the vote, a request was proposed and seconded to take an individual vote on each of the paragraphs in the amended motion. On this request being put to the vote, it was declared LOST. Members were then asked to vote on the amended motion 1 as a whole and on this being put to the vote, it was declared LOST. (A request was received that the voting on amended motion 1 should be recorded. Those voting for the amended motion were Councillors Biss, Butcher, Butler, Cosgrove, Dyball, Harding, James, Lury, McDougall, O’Neill, Mrs. Squires and Dr. Walsh (12); and those voting against were Councillors Mrs. Bower, Bower, Brookman, Mrs. Brown, R. Brown, Church, Mrs. Coleman, Mrs. Daniells, Dendle, Dingemans, Gammon, Mrs. Goad, Mrs. Hall, Haymes, Mrs. Hazlehurst, Hill, Mrs. Maconachie, Matthews, Mrs. Oakley, Parris, Patel, Rankin, Rose, Steward, Wilby, Wilde and Wingrove (27). Councillors Mrs. Kelly and Squires abstained from voting (2).) 269. FURTHER PROCEDURAL ADVICE Councillor Cosgrove raised issues of procedure concerning motion 2, yet to be debated, as the amended motion 1 had been lost. He questioned whether the Council could now debate motion 2 in view of its similarities to the amended motion 1 in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.1 (Previous Decisions and Motions). His concerns related to similarities in:

• Para (3) in amended motion 1 with para (3) in motion 2 • Para (9) in amended motion 1 with para (8) in motion 2 • Para (8) in amended motion 1 with para (6) in motion 2 • Para (10) in amended motion 1 with para (9) in motion 2

The Chairman called an adjournment to seek the Solicitor’s advice

The Solicitor’s outlined Rule 15.1 which referred to previous decisions and motions. The first part of Rule 15.1 related to “rescinding a motion passed within the preceding six months” which was not the issue before the Council as the amended motion 1 had been lost. The second part of Rule 15.1 referred to “rescinding a motion or amendment to ‘the same effect’ as one rejected within the preceding six months”. The Solicitor’s ruling was that motion 1, as originally proposed, and motion 2 had not had ‘the same effect’ which was why both had been included for debate at this meeting. In the Solicitor’s view, this also applied to the amended motion 1 against motion 2. Although the Solicitor could accept that para (3) in the amended motion 1 and para (3) in motion 2 and para (10) in amended motion 1 and para (9) in motion 2 were similar; and that para (9) in amended motion 1 and para (8) in


Meeting 04.08.04 motion 2 was very similar; she did not agree that para (8) in amended motion 1 and para (6) in motion were that similar. Her ruling was that the amended motion 1 did not have the ‘same effect’ as motion 2 and therefore it could be debated by the Council. During the adjournment, the Solicitor had been asked a further question about the vote taken earlier on whether the amended motion 1 could be voted on in individual parts. The Solicitor’s ruling was that the Constitution was silent on whether a vote could be taken in parts or as whole. It also gave no discretion to the Chairman. In the absence of any clear rule, the Solicitor had advised the Chairmen to ask all Members to take this decision. The Solicitor accepted that custom and practice in the past had been to allow motions to be voted on in part, but without a clear rule in the Constitution, her view was that to take a vote had been the correct democratic process to follow. The Solicitor did agree to include this issue within the review of the Constitution when this was next undertaken. 270. MOTION 2 Councillor Dingemans then proposed Motion 2 to read: “(1) the setting up of a Trust be agreed in principle, based on the charitable IPS model and subject to a risk analysis being completed and consideration of other options, to include the following services:- (i) Littlehampton Swimming and Sports Centre (ii) Arun Leisure Centre (iii) Windmill Entertainment Centre (iv) Sports and Play (v) Arts and Heritage Development (vi) Leisure Development and Marketing (including Leisure Connection and Membership Scheme) (vii) Staging Events (eg Birdman) (2) Arun to retain:- (i) Event co-ordination/authorisation (ii) Leisure Grants administration (iii) Cultural Strategy role including policy liaison with planning (iv) Liaison with Trust

172 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04 (3) the Council explore the transfer of the Laburnum and Tamarisk Day Centres to an organisation such as Age Concern, with a view to achieving operational savings via a tapering grant over the next 5 years but with longer term commitment to a minimum level of core funding; (4) the Trust be offered provision of corporate services via a Service Level Agreement for a period of 1-2 years, the Shadow Trust itself to decide whether it wants to use Council services and for how long. There can be no compulsion for the Trust to use Council services or for the Council to provide them; (5) as the Lawrence Graham report envisaged savings from NNDR and VAT to be reinvested to improve Leisure Services and break the downward circle of declining facilities, if these savings were to be lost to Leisure Services via the Arun Priorities savings exercise (and a further £50,000 of savings are to be made and, if in addition, it is decided to create a new post of CEO), then there needs to be a comparable commitment to continue reinvestment over a limited period of time via the asset management process. All of this detail needs to be reflected in both the shadow Trust’s business plan, the Council’s Service Level Agreement, and broadly meet the expectations of the Council’s Financial Strategy; (6) to meet the timescale for implementation on 1st April 2005, communication must be maintained with West Sussex County Council/Felpham Community College over the inclusion of the Arun Leisure Centre in the Trust; (7) if the decision is made to proceed to set up a Trust at Full Council on 4th August 2004, the immediate procurement of further consultancy advice is required to assist the process of advertising for and selection of Shadow Trustees, preparations of the Trust’s business plan, the Council’s Service Level Agreements, creating the charitable IPS, creating the non charitable trading arm, and preparing the leases for each site, etc; (8) as certain elements of the Leisure Trust Working Party’s Terms of Reference still remain to be undertaken after the decision to proceed has been taken by Full Council, it be agreed that the Leisure Trust Working Party continues to meet to establish a project plan for the implementation of the Trust to include the preparation of a 5 year financial plan, size of Trust Board and make-up and reporting arrangements; and that its Terms of Reference be amended to include responsibility for advertising/appointment of Shadow Trustees (with appropriate consultancy support);


Meeting 04.08.04 (9) the Head of Finance be requested to prepare a financial model for funding to a Trust based on the services as set out in recommendation (1) above for consideration at the next meeting of the Leisure Trust Working Party; (10) a supplementary estimate of up to £100,000 be approved subject to further consideration of the business case being undertaken by the Leisure Trust Working Party, to enable the appointment of consultants to enable work to proceed to set up a Shadow Trust; (11) an officer be seconded as Trust Interim Manager and for

another officer to manage the client side in the build up to forming a Trust;

(12) the Working Party’s Terms of Reference be amended so that it is the body to move the Council forward to Phase 3 of the Leisure Trust route; and (13) that Leisure Trust Working Party reports are submitted to Full Council for consideration and decision.” In proposing the motion, Councillor Dingemans referred to the background to the recommendations being made. He believed that they were the best way of taking the exploratory work forward. He referred to the Consultants report and how this had guided the Council on the benefits that a Trust could bring. The experience gained from other Trusts was that Trust status did impact on income levels and gave greater opportunities to develop leisure services, with savings also being achieved on central and corporate costs. The Leisure Trust Working Party had been set the task of exploring the Trust route and had made clear recommendations on how it felt the process should move forward. Motion 2 contained these recommendations plus additions about changing the Working Party’s Terms of Reference so that it reported back to Full Council. This was in response to the concerns raised over the debate at the last Council Meeting on the difficulty of receiving recommendations from more than one source. In concluding, Councillor Dingemans asked Members to support motion 2, as presented. The motion was then duly seconded by Councillor Wilby.

174 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04 In seconding the motion, Councillor Wilby also referred to the addition of para (13) to request the Working Party to report back to Full Council, which he fully supported. He believed the Trust was the best way forward to provide leisure services as it would not be confined by the restrictions that a local authority faced. A Trust offered opportunities to provide services more flexibly and respond to the needs of the community. He strongly believed it was the best solution to developing leisure services in the 21st Century. The timescale being proposed was based on the Consultants advice and allowed for the Council to gain further knowledge from experienced Trusts. Although it was felt that this timetable was reasonable, Councillor Wilby stated that if the work could not be completed by 1 April 2005, that it would continue beyond that date until all the work was carried out. In opening the debate, an amendment was moved and seconded by Councillor Dr. Walsh to:

• delete para (1)(vii) which read: ”Staging Events (eg Birdman)”; and • replace the wording at para (2)(i) which read: “Event co-

ordination/authorisation” with “special events under the aegis of Arun District Council”

The amendment was duly seconded by Councillor McDougall. A second amendment was moved and seconded by Councillor Dr. Walsh to delete para (1)(iii) which referred to the “Windmill Entertainment Centre”. This amendment was duly seconded by Councillor McDougall. The debate then focussed on the first amendment to delete para (1)(vii) and amend para (2)(i) to read: “special events under the aegis of Arun District Council”. Some Members felt this amendment could not be supported as it went against the recommendations of the Leisure Trust Working Party of what should be included in the Trust. Others felt that this should be supported as they did not believe that the Council should lose responsibility for special events and that it would be inappropriate for them to be managed by a Trust. The example of the Bognor Birdman was particularly highlighted and the recent interest shown by a local business in sponsoring the 2005 event was seen as needing to be strongly pursued by the Council. A ruling was sought as to whether this amendment was valid as it had been lost in the amended motion 1.


Meeting 04.08.04

The Chairman called an adjournment to seek the Solicitor’s advice The Solicitor’s advice was that on the basis of the principles agreed for amended motion 1, the motion had been voted on as a whole and para (4) had been just one part of the whole amended motion. This amendment related to the latest motion before the Council and the Solicitor’s ruling was that it was valid and could be considered. A further ruling was sought on whether the Council could include at para (1) (vii) reference to the Bognor Birdman as the Council did not ‘own’ the Birdman. The Solicitor was asked whether this paragraph was valid. The Solicitor’s advice was that the wording was based on the partnership arrangements that the Council had and her interpretation was that the Council would just be handing over the Council’s part of the function. On this basis, she ruled that the wording was valid. Having asked Councillor McDougall to respond as seconder of the motion and given Councillor Dr. Walsh his right of the reply, the amendment was put to the vote, and declared LOST. (A request was received that the voting on amendment should be recorded. Those voting for the amendment were Councillors Biss, Butcher, Butler, Cosgrove, Dyball, Harding, Lury, McDougall, O’Neill, Mrs. Squires and Dr. Walsh (11); and those voting against were Councillors Mrs. Bower, Bower, Brookman, Mrs. Brown, R. Brown, Church, Mrs. Coleman, Mrs. Daniells, Dendle, Dingemans, Gammon, Mrs. Goad, Mrs. Hall, Haymes, Mrs. Hazlehurst, Hill, Mrs. Maconachie, Matthews, Mrs. Oakley, Parris, Patel, Rankin, Rose, Steward, Wilby, Wilde and Wingrove (27). Councillors Mrs. Kelly and Squires abstained from voting (2).) Members then turned their attention to the second amendment to delete para (1)(iii) which referred to the Windmill Entertainment Centre. In presenting the amendment, Councillor Dr. Walsh referred to his concerns at the implications for the Theatre if it was to be included within the Trust. He strongly believed that if it was included and then continued to face financial difficulty that there would a possibility that the Theatre could be lost. He felt it needed to be retained by the Council for the benefit of the community of Arun. Again there were mixed views on whether the amendment should be supported. Some Members felt it went against the recommendations of the Leisure Trust Working Party and that the Trust route offered opportunities for the Theatre’s future development. Others felt that it should be retained under the control of the Council. There was also the view that it should be up to the Shadow Trustees to decide whether they would want the Theatre to be included within the Trust.

176 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04 On the amendment being put to the vote, it was declared LOST. (A request was received that the voting on amendment should be recorded. Those voting for the amendment were Councillors Biss, Butcher, Butler, Cosgrove, Dyball, Harding, Lury, McDougall, O’Neill, Mrs. Squires and Dr. Walsh (11); and those voting against were Councillors Mrs. Bower, Bower, Brookman, Mrs. Brown, R. Brown, Church, Mrs. Coleman, Mrs. Daniells, Dendle, Dingemans, Gammon, Mrs. Goad, Mrs. Hall, Haymes, Mrs. Hazlehurst, Hill, Mrs. Maconachie, Matthews, Mrs. Oakley, Parris, Patel, Rankin, Rose, Steward, Wilby, Wilde and Wingrove (27). Councillors Mrs. Kelly and Squires abstained from voting (2).) A further amendment was then proposed by Councillor Cosgrove to:

• add to para (1)(iii) after: “Windmill Entertainment Centre” ‘dependent on the outcome of further discussions with the Windmill Action Group and Littlehampton Town Council as to their interests in the running of the entertainment centre’; and

• delete at para (1)(vii), the words “(eg Bognor Birdman)”

The amendment was duly seconded by Councillor O’Neill. The Cabinet Member for Leisure informed Members that the Windmill Action Group supported the Theatre being included in the Trust proposals and so he felt that this amendment could not be supported. Councillor O’Neill in seconding the motion did not believe the support of the Action Group and Littlehampton Town Council would continue if the Theatre was included in the Trust. On putting the amendment to para (1)(iii) to the vote, it was declared LOST. On putting the amendment to para (1)(vii) to the vote, it was declared LOST. During the debate on the amended Motion 1 and on Motion 2, reference had been made to a note to Conservative Members that implied that a whip was in place. At this point in the meeting, Councillor Cosgrove stated that he would pass this to officers to pursue.


Meeting 04.08.04 Members then returned to motion 2, as presented. There were still concerns expressed that this would not allow sufficient time for all the options to be fully explored and for all the implications to be properly examined. In concluding, Councillor Dingemans asked Members to support the motion if they wanted to see better leisure services at a lower cost to the Council. On motion 2 being put to the vote, it was declared CARRIED. Therefore, the Council

RESOLVED – That

(1) the setting up of a Trust be agreed in principle, based on the charitable IPS model and subject to a risk analysis being completed and consideration of other options, to include the following services:- (i) Littlehampton Swimming and Sports Centre (ii) Arun Leisure Centre (iii) Windmill Entertainment Centre (iv) Sports and Play (v) Arts and Heritage Development (vi) Leisure Development and Marketing (including Leisure Connection and Membership Scheme) (vii) Staging Events (eg Birdman) (2) Arun to retain:- (i) Event co-ordination/authorisation (ii) Leisure Grants administration (iii) Cultural Strategy role including policy liaison with

planning (iv) Liaison with Trust (3) the Council explore the transfer of the Laburnum and Tamarisk Day Centres to an organisation such as Age Concern, with a view to achieving operational savings via a tapering grant over the next 5 years but with longer term commitment to a minimum level of core funding; (4) the Trust be offered provision of corporate services via a Service Level Agreement for a period of 1-2 years, the Shadow Trust itself to decide whether it wants to use Council services and for how long. There can be no compulsion for the Trust to use Council services or for the Council to provide them;

178 Extraordinary Council Meeting 04.08.04 (5) as the Lawrence Graham report envisaged savings from NNDR and VAT to be reinvested to improve Leisure Services and break the downward circle of declining facilities, if these savings were to be lost to Leisure Services via the Arun Priorities savings exercise (and a further £50,000 of savings are to be made and, if in addition, it is decided to create a new post of CEO), then there needs to be a comparable commitment to continue reinvestment over a limited period of time via the asset management process. All of this detail needs to be reflected in both the shadow Trust’s business plan, the Council’s Service Level Agreement, and broadly meet the expectations of the Council’s Financial Strategy; (6) to meet the timescale for implementation on 1st April 2005, communication must be maintained with West Sussex County Council/Felpham Community College over the inclusion of the Arun Leisure Centre in the Trust; (7) if the decision is made to proceed to set up a Trust at Full Council on 4th August 2004, the immediate procurement of further consultancy advice is required to assist the process of advertising for and selection of Shadow Trustees, preparations of the Trust’s business plan, the Council’s Service Level Agreements, creating the charitable IPS, creating the non charitable trading arm, and preparing the leases for each site, etc; (8) as certain elements of the Leisure Trust Working Party’s Terms of Reference still remain to be undertaken after the decision to proceed has been taken by Full Council, it be agreed that the Leisure Trust Working Party continues to meet to establish a project plan for the implementation of the Trust to include the preparation of a 5 year financial plan, size of Trust Board and make-up and reporting arrangements; and that its Terms of Reference be amended to include responsibility for advertising/appointment of Shadow Trustees (with appropriate consultancy support); (9) the Head of Finance be requested to prepare a financial model for funding to a Trust based on the services as set out in recommendation (1) above for consideration at the next meeting of the Leisure Trust Working Party; (10) a supplementary estimate of up to £100,000 be approved subject to further consideration of the business case being undertaken by the Leisure Trust Working Party, to enable the appointment of consultants to enable work to proceed to set up a Shadow Trust;


Meeting 04.08.04

(11) an officer be seconded as Trust Interim Manager and for

another officer to manage the client side in the build up to forming a Trust;

(12) the Working Party’s Terms of Reference be amended so that it is the body to move the Council forward to Phase 3 of the Leisure Trust route; and (13) that Leisure Trust Working Party reports are submitted to Full Council for consideration and decision. 271. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS The Council was asked to approve the Statement of Accounts for 2003/04, a copy of which had been attached to the agenda for the meeting. The accounts had been certified by the Council’s responsible financial officer as presenting fairly the financial position of the Council as at 31st March 2004 and had been prepared in accordance with the relevant code of practice. Having received a statement from the Leader of the Council in which he referred to the amended page 26 which had been circulated separately to Members and corrected a typographical error in the figures provided, the Council RESOLVED That the Statement of Accounts for 2003/04 be approved.

(The meeting concluded at 10.01 p.m.)

Documents

MINUTES OF AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE ......2004/08/04 · Minutes 268 (part) to 271; Councillor James – Minutes 269 (part) to 271.) 262. WELCOME Having postponed starting