Agenda item

Scrutiny Committee is to review the following items in order to provide any comments to Cabinet

1.    The Vale of White Horse Leisure Facilities Assessment and Strategy review and

2.    The Vale of White Horse Playing Pitch Strategy

The Cabinet member for Policy and Programmes introduced the report, supported by the Infrastructure Planning Team Leader. The Head of Policy and Programmes, Planning Policy Manager and the Leisure Development Officer were also online.

The strategy was a joint project with SODC and it was a high-level snapshot in time. The aim of the strategy was to protect and maintain existing facilities and build new ones where there is a need. Facility owners were approached and spoken to, as well as a steering group with officers, and a public consultation was carried out (results were in the appendices of the agenda).

Regarding the public speakers’ comments, the Cabinet member spoke about the Botley facilities. The changes in June were not in the strategy as it was a snapshot in time. It was confirmed that officers can provide a written update before the Cabinet meeting. Keeping the reference to the pool in the strategy helped secure the need for it.

Committee asked questions and provided their views:

·       If the strategy was for up to 2041, how was change reflected? It was explained it was part of the evidence base to Joint Local Plan (JLP) to 2041. The strategy builds in anticipated population growth from a data driven model.

·       A member felt that reflecting active travel in the strategy could not be fixed quickly. It was explained that the 20-minute drive rule was Sport England’s guidance for reasonable distance of facilities to residents.

·       There was discussion about why this was not a joint strategy with South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC)? For example, cross border use of facilities. The cabinet member explained that the strategy had been developed jointly with SODC. 

·       The Cabinet member explained that regarding the request for a new 3G pitch - Grove Airfield was being considered whether it was a feasible site. The Cabinet member explained that there was some funding to Grove area not none as suggested and gave examples of committed projects in the village.

·       Regarding active travel, it was explained that the strategy includes a section on active / sustainable travel and decarbonisation.  Furthermore, Policy HP2 of the emerging Joint Local Plan requires that new provision should be near public transport. The Cabinet member added that the transport strategy was separate and should mesh together with this. An officer responded that that section eight included sustainable travel principles with Sport England advice.

·       A member asked how do you keep this strategy updated without contacts for providers? The Cabinet member responded that the team had been working with Sport England and National Governing Bodies for each sport to obtain details, and partly through adding contacts through the consultation process. The team intended to maintain this approach in developing the action plan to deliver the strategy. The officer added that the consultant sent survey requests to all clubs and there were site visits and reminder emails.

·       An officer explained that there was a mix of private and public run facilities in our districts and the strategy does not expect the public sector to operate all leisure facilities / playing pitches.  Attempting to ensure all provision was public run, there was a risk of operating loss-making facilities.

On the Leisure facilities strategy:

·       EX11: it was asked what does Stage E mean? An officer replied that it was the action plan that follows on from this strategy. It follows up on where there was a lack of facilities and how to move towards implementation. For example, timescales for S106 spend and prioritising areas with need.

·       Members discussed whether school sports halls were community facilities and accessible to the public.

·       There was a discussion on Community Use Agreements to secure access. An officer confirmed that where the council provided S106 funds for these facilities there would be potential penalty clauses for failure to provide the facilities. The Head of Legal and Democratic explained that there would be some legal options to recover money, it was enforceable and protected.

·       A member asked about Abbey Meadow lido and why it wasn’t included in the strategy. The Cabinet member explained that it was not considered at length due to the short / seasonal operational period of the lido.

·       Park Run - a member stated that they would have liked to have seen this mentioned in the strategy. Communities needed a safe loop route for activities such as running and off-road biking. The officer explained that the strategy mapped out actual physical infrastructure and suggested that the active communities team might be able to help community groups to set up routes. The existing and emerging local plans include a requirement for new developments to provide green infrastructure / trails etc.

·       On accessibility – an officer explained to committee that the statutory stakeholder Sport England provided the guidance for accessibility, and that policies in the local plan also require developments to be accessible for all. Head of Legal and Democratic added that there was national legislation and Health and Social Care Act that cover these requirements.

·       It was explained that the timescales identified in the report were for delivery (for example where a “scoping report” was mentioned, the timescales were for final delivery of the project, not the report).

·      In reference to Valley Park having no leisure centre, members discussed the methodology and requirements for securing new provision. The officer explained that there was sufficient provision in Didcot as a neighbouring area and this would be looked at for all developments. A developer could add funds to an existing facility over creating a new one which would be considered unnecessary.

·       MUGAs – a member raised the issue of even newer equipment not being to standard - wear and tear. The officer confirmed that there would be commuted sums for upkeep. The standards would come from Sport England.

·       A member asked about encouraging maintenance. Officer added on page 102 there was mention of the subject.

After asking questions, committee considered what advice they could offer.

How can this strategy help us with the loss of opportunities for sports teams?

Regarding Harcourt Hill, the Cabinet member explained the need was still established in the strategy and was allocated for leisure.

The officer present explained that factual errors / minor updates based on key changes to the projects can be amended or clarifications added before the report and strategies got to Cabinet. Members were content that an update would be provided to the issues raised by public speakers.

Chair summarised the following conclusions from committee’s questioning and discussion. The following points were agreed by committee to recommend to Cabinet:

Recommendations to Cabinet:

·       Committee raised the conceptual issue regarding the 20-minute drive – they had concern over the clash with council plan objectives on active travel. Members suggested that Cabinet lobbies Sport England

·       Members were concerned over how we intend to keep updated and track changes and the visibility to scrutiny committee (IDP / Action plan).

·      Committee requested that the facilities updates raised by public speakers shall be provided before Cabinet in an update provided by Cabinet member and officers.

·       Members asked Cabinet for a review of process for data gathering and the inclusion of local members in future, and to consider the timeliness of scrutiny reviews.

·       Committee would like to see an estimate of community user agreements that had been achieved in the action plan and to provide robust reporting (potentially via council plan reporting).