Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors J Yeomans, B Davies, J Ewing, A Jones. P Roberts - Cabinet Member for a Learning Powys
There were no Declarations of Interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member had been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
The Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys led a presentation and supported by the following officers: Director of Corporate Services & Section 151 Officer, Director of Economic Development & Growth and the Capital & Finance Planning Accountant. • The purpose of the report was to outline the findings of the leisure review and propose options for the development of a more sustainable and affordable model of leisure opportunities for the long-term benefit of residents and visitors to Powys and secondly to agree to consult with the public about which option should be adopted. • The overarching strategic aim was to work with and support the people of Powys to be active to maintain and improve wellbeing. • The Director of Corporate Services and Section 151 Officer provided the financial context within which the Council was operating. • The Director of Economic Development & Growth presented the key areas covered by the review. • The Cabinet Member of a Safer Powys outlined all four options. • The Report to Cabinet would be presented on 26 November 2024. Issues Raised by the Committee: Responses Received from Officers and Cabinet Members: It was stated that there was no input from Health Colleagues and the Powys Teaching Health Board. Due to lack of collaboration with the Health Board, Officers in Health, Social Services, Education and Freedom Leisure there was a significant number of gaps in information regarding impacts on residents’ health, access to services for vulnerable people and for schools to meet curriculum needs. Including viability and cost assumptions. In turn the Committees found the report to be challenging and asked if it was sufficient for Cabinet consideration. The Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys referenced page 353 as the impact assessments provided evidence of health impacts for each option proposed. There has been full collaboration throughout the leisure review process with Education and the Schools Transformation team and Freedom Leisure The Committees struggled to understand how the options were chosen. If option 1 was not financially viable for the Council, why was it being put out to consultation. It was asked why a fifth hub had been introduced. The Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys stated that Powys adopted Sustainable Powys principles, initially focusing on four major towns. Ystradgynlais was included later due to its size and deprivation issues. The Committees did not have information to support the notion that options 2, 3 or 4 were viable from Freedom Leisure’s perspective. Freedom Leisure would not provide comments regarding viability of options. Freedom would support the Council in the options it proposes or decisions it makes Why was transferring leisure centres to the private sector considered before knowing what Freedom Leisure could manage without a subsidy from Powys County Council. If this was known to be a viable option, why was data not provided in the report. As part of the proposed consultation, all options would be further explored The Committees asked which option was preferred by Cabinet. The Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys stated that the Cabinet had decided not to state a preferred option. Cabinet was of the view that all options and cost implications needed public consultation. Which option did the Cabinet think was affordable to the Council? The continuation of current leisure services by the Council would depend on council tax rates. Providing these services in the same manner in the future would significantly affect council tax, and the public should be informed of this through consultation. Which option had officers recommended to Cabinet? The officer recommendation to Cabinet was 2, in line with the Sustainable Powys principles and affordability. Why was the Cabinet considering other options? The Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys noted that it might not be the only sustainable option. Other alternatives were available in the presented options. The Committee requested that costings for each leisure centre, including the usage, income, essential maintenance costs and net zero costs were provided. Some information is already available through the ‘dashboard’ https://en.powys.gov.uk/article/17394/Leisure-Review https://cy.powys.gov.uk/article/17396/Adolygiad-o-Hamdden Further detail will be provided as part of future discussions Concerns were raised around the impact on vulnerable groups and how those with disabilities would be supported. The Director of Economic Development and Growth explained that the impact assessment covered that information. Comments to improve the content of the impact assessment were welcomed. Concerns were raised that this was not a full review of leisure facilities as it did not contain the issues logged around footpaths and bridleways. The Cabinet Member welcomed consideration to this matter in the recommendations to Cabinet. Had consideration been given to offer the larger, more profitable leisure centres to be taken on privately or by communities and noted the report did not provide this option. There could have been many other ‘options’ proposed as part of the paper. As part of the proposed consultation, suggestions such as this could have been raised and explored further. The 5 leisure facilities proposed to be kept open were the most expensive to run and maintain. Ystradgynlais and Newtown were 11th and 12th in affordability estimations of pounds per square metre, for capital works. The Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys answered that none of Powys’s leisure centres operated at a profit. 61% of current users of leisure centres used the centres in the 5 key hub towns. These centres would cost more to run and maintain due to being larger buildings. The contract with Freedom Leisure was commercially procured through a competitive tender process and saved the Council substantially, which represented value for money for the taxpayer, but any negotiation may cost the taxpayer more. Would a penalty clause be incurred if any variation to the contract was made. It was challenged why the transfer to the private sector had been considered before knowing what Freedom Leisure could provide without a subsidy from Powys County Council. The Head of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer answered that the contract was set up in 2014/15 and allowed for the contract to be varied via leisure centres/facilities closing. If circumstances changed compensation would be discussed with Freedom Leisure. The report provided a figure of £21.4million to maintain and bring the leisure facilities up to an industry standard, it was widely known that industry standards were seldom achieved due to unaffordability. It was questioned whether these costs were representative of what the Council would need to spend on the Leisure buildings in the long term. The Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys noted that the Leisure Review working group undertook a review into costings and explained that appendix K could provide more information to the Committee. An officer answered that the maintenance figures presented only covered the cost of essential works to keep the buildings operational and open. £62.8million for reaching Net Zero had been presented as a figure that the Council must fund itself and therefore a consideration in the rationale behind the options for closure of the leisure centres. It was noted net zero had been recognised as unaffordable by many UK Councils, however the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme provided up to 90% capital funding in England and funding may become available in Wales. It was suggested that the Council should use its position to lobby Welsh Government to bring this funding forward to support Powys’s leisure centres. The Capital & Financial Planning Accountant answered that there was no other method to fund Net Zero. Until other methods of funding became available, it must remain as cost to the Council. Schools were under pressure to maintain buildings which the report did not reflect. If schools agreed to run leisure facilities, it could result in no financial saving to the council. An officer replied that services worked closely with each other to ensure all aspects were included. Some secondary schools were reliant upon their local leisure centre facilities for their school hall. It was noted that costs would need to be factored in if schools did run dry side facilities. The Committees asked how budgets would be impacted if schools were to take on dry side facilities. Each school would be considered on a case-by-case basis, initial reactions from schools had been mixed. Work was being carried out to gain a more consistent and equitable swimming offer for primary schools. The schools would currently access leisure provision for swimming, meeting the curriculum and for any operational issues. Therefore, it was important to be careful and understand the impact of a rationalised structure. There would be a cost to schools taking on the dry side facilities which would need to be factored into how they were funded. The committees noted that core town leisure facilities would not meet Powys’s needs, as highlighted by school requirements. The cost to Powys of transferring facilities to schools was asked and highlighted that it was in the School Transformation Programme to have community facilities. Therefore, removing leisure facilities would not tie up the school transformation programme. It was explained that the cost for schools to take on the leisure facilities, including repairs, maintenance and investment was already factored into the costs put before the committees. And expressed that schools would need to achieve curriculum requirements using the delegated budget; however, it could not be used to subsidise any out of school hours activities. The report did not reflect or highlight the impact on pupils and raised concerns around transport needs and the Welsh Language Policy. The impact assessments do address issues raised here The report highlighted 4 examples of community led leisure facilities. It was suggested that more examples would help to better inform the members and asked how communities would run wet side leisure facilities. Noted What support would be provided for local community groups who had taken on a leisure facility? Each case would be considered individually, and the Council would be proactive in supporting community groups in developing business cases and ensuring that it was sustainable. Support and assistance would also be offered towards achieving external funding. It was asked which facility would be most suited for local communities to run. It was explained that a leisure centre with a variety of facilities, in a well-located area would be best suited for transfer. The Committees noted the role of leisure centres in personal and community wellbeing and emphasised long-term effects any closure would have on social services. The Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys agreed with the statement and understood the importance of leisure centres for mental and physical health and well-being. How would the Council ensure that vulnerable groups in rural areas continued to have sufficient access to health-promoting activities under each of these 4 options? It was stated that access was uneven with some residents experiencing difficulties to access facilities. A review on public transport was being undertaken to improve public transport infrastructure and ensure that vulnerable people could have access to a whole range of services across the county. Concerns were raised regarding how frequently health outcomes, accessibility, and service usage would be reviewed, and the measures the Council would undertake to rectify any issues around reduced access to leisure facilities. Council services, Health and a range of other agencies would need to work collaboratively to agree how this would / could be monitored and reviewed What accessibility requirements were needed to ensure school or community facilities were inclusive for individuals with mobility impairments or special needs. If the Council considered alternative commercial operators, it would be vital that facilities were affordable and accessible and would be a key consideration in any transfer. Page 22 – the Committees challenged the statement regarding centres not making a profit and asked for the budget payments to be clarified. If the £750,000 surplus that Freedom Leisure made in the last financial year was taken from that, several of the leisure centres could be running at a surplus. It was stated that Freedom Leisure had only recently moved to a profitable position after deficit since the contract began. An officer explained that the Council made a management fee contribution to Freedom Leisure which put them in a surplus position over the last couple of years which was netting off cumulative deficit that occurred in the first few years of the contract, It was commented that schools were in effect paying the full revenue budget of £2.3 million and there was no charge being met by the leisure service budget itself. The Head of Transforming Education answered that the school’s element of the contract was £2.3million, inclusive of the savings identified for 2024/25 and confirmed that the budget was from the Education service. Clarification was sought around which budget paid the Freedom Leisure fee. Confusion over figures as the report stated that the total revenue was £2.3million. If schools were £2.3million and leisure budget provided £400,000 then the figure in the report should be £2.7 million. It was also requested to see the contribution of Powys Teaching Health Board to this funding. The Senior Manager Community Wellbeing answered that there was a cost to the leisure service as part of the leisure contract. The majority was the schools’ costs which covered core curriculum elements for high schools (PE) and swimming, which was over £2million. Approximately £400,000 from leisure budget contributed to the leisure contract. More detail would be provided before the next meeting on 20 November. A discussion took place around the proximity and locations of centres and the increase from 4 to 5 hubs and the committees asked for clarification around the rationale behind making Ystradgynlais a core town. It was also asked if out of county provision had been considered. The question of whether Ystradgynlais should be a hub town was not directly relevant to discussions and option 2 suggested to keep 4 hubs plus Ystradgynlais due to it being one of the best used leisure centres in Powys. The Committees requested to see the financial performance of each leisure centre to understand the viability of asking communities to take on these facilities. The data requested was held by Freedom Leisure and would been considered for the next meeting on 20 November. It was felt that the school transformation capital programme had slowed. Concerns were raised around new school sites having access to swimming pools, an example of Ysgol Bro Hyddgen was given. Option 4 included a suggestion to review the leisure facilities adjoining new schools. A proposal to retain the leisure centre at Machynlleth was made due to its remoteness. • It was asked that questions relating to the financial element of the report be given to officers in advance to provide comprehensive answers at the next public scrutiny meeting. • A strategic approach was needed. The budget challenges were well known and service provision needed to be balanced to ensure longevity of provision. • The Committee highlighted that there were many unanswered questions and urged officers to look at where there were gaps in information so that the Committees could make informed recommendations at the next meeting. • If Net zero was a driving force in this work, a holistic approach should be taken, and consideration given to the consequences of centres closing and the decommissioning of centres on the Council’s carbon footprint. • The report lacked information regarding the impacts of increased travel times to facilities, and the need for people to access services earlier. • The Committees were sceptical about the feasibility of communities and schools successfully running centres and stressed the importance of honestly from the Council to ensure realistic scenarios were provided. Almost all rural communities scored highly in the multiple indices for deprivation for lack of access to services and it was felt closing centres would increase issues. • The report was not clear about how school swimming lessons would be provided. • It was suggested that leisure facilities be partially open, and each locality was not being reviewed individually. • Powys County Council had been criticised in the past for not taking on board consultation responses. The committees worried for the reputation of the Council if this was repeated.
Committees would consider recommendations at the meeting on 20 November 2024.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.