Agenda item

5.1

Andy Chaplin attended the Committee and asked the following questions:

5.1.1

We would ask the Committee to scrutinise the development of the initial plans and the procurement process.

We would ask the committee to satisfy themselves that allocating £207k to the scheme makes financial sense.

Assuming that a hub and spoke model is beneficial for making tennis sustainable we still believe that Hillsborough Park is not the best location for the scheme. In this regard we would ask the Committee to satisfy themselves with the following issues as and when procurement proposals are received.

1.     Does it make sense to reconfigure a well-used space that is still in a reasonable condition?

2.     Is the loss of 2/3rds of the current MUGA area an acceptable loss of free to use space?

3.     Are there adequate arrangements being made for Cycling4All?

4.     Will the smaller MUGA be free and available to use at any time for casual play?

5.     Is it acceptable that the number of Sheffield’s floodlit tennis courts will reduce from 4 to 3?

6.     Is the £207k of S106 money being used correctly, as specified, on a MUGA replacement?

7.     Who bears and what is the cost of moving 3 tennis courts to facilitate Tramlines entry gates?

8.     Is the view of the public consultation against a fully indoor space on the site being heeded?

9.     Will all income generated in Hillsborough Park be used for the benefit of the park?

10. What evidence is there that the proposed scheme will increase physical activity compared to the current tennis and informal MUGA usage?

5.1.2

The Chair stated that written responses would be sent out to the questions. It was also clarified by the Chair that officers are working on solutions.

5.2

Anisa Haroon had a question regarding Mather Road Playground. Dave Cronshaw had a question regarding a Golf Course. Both were not present at the meeting. The Chair promised written responses.

(Note: written responses to questions will also be subsequently published on the website)