Agenda item

Consideration of objections to leases regarding Parks Tennis

Report of the Executive Director – Operational Services

Decision:

8.1

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Neighbourhood Services and was asked to consider the contents of this and previous reports and make a decision as to whether the proposed disposal was on balance in the best interests of the charitable trusts/parks.

 

The decisions that the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee were asked to make on the basis of this report related to charitable and non-charitable land. These decisions fall to the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee because the decisions in relation to the charitable and non-charitable sites are indivisible. A decision could not, for example, be taken by another Committee not to proceed and by this Sub-Committee to proceed as the contractual arrangement was proposed to apply to all of the sites. For the avoidance of doubt an amendment to the Constitution was agreed by Full Council on Wednesday 6th September 2023 to specifically reserve such decisions to this Sub-Committee.

 

8.2

RESOLVED: That the Charity Trustees Sub-Committee:-

 

 

Having:

  • noted and endorsed the contents of the report;
  • noted that the Cooperative Executive Decision of 22nd April 2022 approved;

o   the proposed City Council funding contribution of up to £180,000 (of prudential borrowing) towards the development of the Activity Hub at Hillsborough Park; and

o   the allocation of Section 106 funds of up to £183,000 for the development of the facilities at Hillsborough Park, as described in the report; and

  • reviewed and considered the objections and supportive comments received and, in particular, if the same affected the decision as to whether the proposals were in the best interests of each charity and park

 

the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee confirmed their approval of:

1.    the award of the contract to the preferred supplier Courtside CIC; and

2.    the grant of leases of the properties referred to in the body of the report to the preferred supplier, Courtside CIC, on the terms set out in the previous reports, being satisfied that the proposed terms are the best that can be reasonably obtained in the circumstances.

 

The Charity Trustee Sub-Committee also requested that monitoring of the performance of the supplier take place in accordance with Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of the report at item 8 of the meeting of the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee, 5th June, 2023, and a report be brought back to the committee at its meeting in September 2024.

 

(NOTE: The result of the vote was FOR – 4 Members; AGAINST – 1 Members; ABSTENTIONS – 0 Members.

 

Councillor Douglas Johnson requested that his vote against the recommendations be noted)

 

 

8.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

 

Whilst the Committee were grateful to those who had taken the time to respond to the notices and raise objections they noted that there was both support for as well as opposition to the proposals and, on balance, they did not feel that the objections raised substantial new issues, they did still feel that the proposals were in the best interests of each charity and park and they did feel that the proposed terms were the best that could be reasonably obtained in the circumstances.

 

 

8.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

 

The Committee considered not approving the contract and leases but felt that would not be in the best interests of the charities/parks.

 

Minutes:

8.1

The Policy Committee received two questions from members of the public.

 

Questions from Friends of Hillsborough Park

 

·       Over 2117 people oppose the Activity Hub scheme. In the face of such overwhelming opposition to the scheme why would the council continue with it?

·       Given the overwhelming public opposition does the council support it because it will create more physical activity? If so, how many hours of physical activity do people spend on the MUGA and tennis courts now and how does this compare to the projected hours of activity on the facilities post-development?

·       Given the overwhelming public opposition does the council support it because it will create financial sustainability for parks tennis? If so, why is it not currently sustainable, is parks tennis currently a source of income or a cost to the council and what is written into the project proposal in terms of sustainability? Classing all financial information as commercially confidential will not convince the public that there is any potential benefit to offset the clear disadvantages of the scheme.

·       Given that the overwhelming public opposition focussed particularly on the effect the proposal would have on those people and families affected by the cost of living crisis (and noting that an EIA has been completed), does the council support it because it will create better facilities for people who live in social deprivation? If so, what evidence does the council have to demonstrate that reducing free-to-use space and adding pay-to-use activities will be beneficial to those people and families affected by the cost of living crisis?

·       Given that the overwhelming public opposition also highlighted the effect the proposal would have on the disabled communities (and noting that an EIA has been completed) does the council support it because it will create more opportunities for physical activity for people with disabilities? If so, does the council have the support of those organisations which currently use the space – which include Cycling4All, Burton Street Foundation, Friends2Gether, Inspirations – and for these organisations is an Activity Hub preferable to the existing facilities?

·       Given the overwhelming public opposition which builds on the results of the Activity Hub survey where only 38% of respondents support a fully indoor space, does the council support it because it believes there is a need for more community space? If so, has the council determined that all other venues – HASA, the pavilion, the makers shed and Hillsborough sports centre are at capacity?

There is overwhelming opposition to the proposal for an Activity Hub. It was never based on local demand for new facilities, it is a waste of council resources, it is likely to produce worse outcomes than the current facilities, it will reduce public access space in the park, create unnecessary additional buildings and there is no evidence shared with the public to suggest that it will make parks tennis any more sustainable.

Given that the council needs to make £48m of budget cuts this year, in the absence of any public support for the project we believe it will be a poor use of £363k of council funds and we therefore believe that the scheme should not go ahead.

 

Background To These Questions

  1. There is overwhelming opposition to the scheme
    1. 2117 people oppose the scheme on Change.Org
    2. only 412 people voted for a hub in the 2022 Hub questionnaire,101 people voted against it and 94 were undecided
    3. only 19 people from 412 voted for opportunities to try new activities such as petanque, padel tennis or adventure golf in the 2021 Hillsborough Park Forward Plan consultation

2.    We have seen no evidence to support the claim that there will be increased physical activity

  1. In a three month daily spot survey from March 2023 over six times as many people used the MUGA as used the tennis courts. Those people will not fit on a MUGA 1/3rd of its current size
  2. From the 2022 Hub questionnaire it looks like twice as many hours of physical activity are spent on the MUGA compared to the tennis courts. Furthermore in that questionnaire 346 had used the MUGA and only 260 had booked tennis. The current proposal, with a MUGA ¼ the size of the tennis/padel provision is likely to reduce physical activity
  3. The four tennis courts are currently (2022 Courtside data) used for 11% of their available time
  4. At least 15% of the space currently used for physical activity will be converted to café, kitchen, toilets and external seating

3.       We have seen no evidence that park tennis is currently unsustainable or that this proposal will make it sustainable. The following questions need to be addressed.

  1. Is parks tennis a current expense to the council or does it generate income?
  2. What is the current contribution to the sinking fund over the last 7 years?
  3. What is the projected annual contribution in £000s per annum built into the project proposal? This should be a fundamental part of the project proposal.
  4. How does the £000s in improved sustainability compare to spending £363,000 of council funds on the project?
  5. Has any court renovation in the last 7 years been funded by anyone other than the LTA?
  6. Have other solutions for improving sustainability been considered – e.g. increasing fees, reducing block booking discounts, reducing the number of courts to maintain usage/increase occupancy/reduce costs?
  7. 32 courts with 4 floodlit will need a sinking fund of £41,000 p.a. (LTA). Will it be possible to cover the sinking fund as well as making repayments to Prudential Borrowing, Key Fund (50% loan) and rent for Hillsborough Park?
  8. Are payments for rent of the park and contribution to the sinking fund fixed amounts to be paid each year or a contribution from the Hub surplus?

4.    Are councillors satisfied that this proposal will increase rather than decrease physical activity and improve health outcomes, particular amongst those people and families affected by the cost of living crisis?

  1. The comments on the change.org petition specifically mention the availability of free space for children to enjoy and believe that those who cannot afford to pay will be disadvantaged. Is there any evidence that the proposal will improve outcomes for those people and families affected by the cost of living crisis?
  2. Doesn’t the greater use of the Playground, MUGA and All Wheel Track compared to the use of the tennis courts demonstrate that free-to-use space produces better physical outcomes than pay-to-use?
  3. Given the wealth of opportunities for paid-for sporting activity currently available in the park and the surrounding area, where is the evidence that adding more paid-for activities and reducing space for free play, will achieve the desired outcomes?

5.    Are councillors satisfied that this proposal will increase rather than decrease physical activity and improve health outcomes, particularly for people with disabilities?

  1. The survey respondents specifically mention the availability of space for the integration of Cycling4All with other MUGA users. What evidence is there that the proposal will not disadvantage the disabled?
  2. What evidence is there that the new facilities will offer a better opportunity for disabled people to be integrated with other park users than the existing MUGA?
  3. Will mini-golf and a smaller MUGA be more advantageous to the disabled or give less opportunity for inclusive physical activity?

6.    How does the council justify the construction of more new buildings in a public green space?

  1. How does the council justify the increased carbon footprint of constructing new buildings
  2. What is the carbon footprint of running a second café in the park
  3. Does the projectedincrease in car parking revenue indicate that new facilities will encourage people to drive from other parts of the city and what is the carbon footprint of those additional journeys?

Questions from Andy Chaplin

·       Will the total income for the 8 spokes remain nominal with the hub & spoke model?

·       Is there a concession fee with the existing lease with Courtside CIC?

·       Is the proposed “concession fee and contribution to a sinking fund” mainly due to the increased earnings of the hub?

·       Will the “concession fee and contribution to a sinking fund” be shown in the Hillsborough Park charitable accounts?

·       If all of the earnings from the hub are not being shown in the Hillsborough Park charitable accounts do the councillors, as Trustees, agree with that arrangement?

In view of the potential for misrepresentation of the Hillsborough Park Charitable accounts I would ask the committee to defer a decision to dispose of charitable land in order to take legal advice.

 

The Chair thanked both questioners for attending the meeting and asking their questions and explained that; the officers would present their report to the committee, addressing points contained in their questions and a full written response would also be provided.

8.2

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Neighbourhood Services and was asked to consider the contents of this and previous reports and make a decision as to whether the proposed disposal was on balance in the best interests of the charitable trusts/parks.

 

The decisions that the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee were asked to make on the basis of this report related to charitable and non-charitable land. These decisions fall to the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee because the decisions in relation to the charitable and non-charitable sites are indivisible. A decision could not, for example, be taken by another Committee not to proceed and by this Sub-Committee to proceed as the contractual arrangement was proposed to apply to all of the sites. For the avoidance of doubt an amendment to the Constitution was agreed by Full Council on Wednesday 6th September 2023 to specifically reserve such decisions to this Sub-Committee.

 

8.3

Discussion took place around some of the satellite parks involved in the scheme, their individual governance arrangements and whether these would have any impact on the operator’s proposals or the potential funding from Sports England. Officers reassured members that the operator was already running the tennis provision in the parks and would continue to do so and that Sports England were consulted after the committee meeting in June and were satisfied with the scheme as part of SCC’s wider sport and leisure strategy.

 

8.4

It was moved by Cllr Auckland and seconded by Cllr Williams, as an amendment, that the recommendations submitted be amended by the addition of a recommendation to monitor performance and report back to the committee. The amendment was put to the vote and carried.

 

(NOTE: The result of the vote was FOR – 4 Members; AGAINST – 1 Members; ABSTENTIONS – 0 Members.

 

8.5

RESOLVED: That the Charity Trustees Sub-Committee:-

 

 

Having:

  • noted and endorsed the contents of the report;
  • noted that the Cooperative Executive Decision of 22nd April 2022 approved;

o   the proposed City Council funding contribution of up to £180,000 (of prudential borrowing) towards the development of the Activity Hub at Hillsborough Park; and

o   the allocation of Section 106 funds of up to £183,000 for the development of the facilities at Hillsborough Park, as described in the report; and

  • reviewed and considered the objections and supportive comments received and, in particular, if the same affected the decision as to whether the proposals were in the best interests of each charity and park

 

confirmed their approval of:

1.    the award of the contract to the preferred supplier Courtside CIC; and

2.    the grant of leases of the properties referred to in the body of the report to the preferred supplier, Courtside CIC, on the terms set out in the previous reports, being satisfied that the proposed terms are the best that can be reasonably obtained in the circumstances.

 

The Charity Trustee Sub-Committee also requested that monitoring of the performance of the supplier take place in accordance with Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of the report at item 8 of the meeting of the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee, 5th June, 2023, and a report be brought back to the committee at its meeting in September 2024.

 

(NOTE: The result of the vote was FOR – 4 Members; AGAINST – 1 Members; ABSTENTIONS – 0 Members.

 

Councillor Douglas Johnson requested that his vote against the recommendations be noted)

 

 

8.6

Reasons for Decision

 

 

 

Whilst the Committee were grateful to those who had taken the time to respond to the notices and raise objections they noted that there was both support for as well as opposition to the proposals and, on balance, they did not feel that the objections raised substantial new issues, they did still feel that the proposals were in the best interests of each charity and park and they did feel that the proposed terms were the best that could be reasonably obtained in the circumstances.

 

 

8.7

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

 

The Committee considered not approving the contract and leases but felt that would not be in the best interests of the charities/parks.

 

Supporting documents: