Agenda and minutes

The Chair reported that a request had been made by a member of the public to record the meeting.

RESOLVED – That the request be refused but that the member of the public be offered a copy of the council’s recording of the meeting.

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes.)

There were no late items.

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no disclosable pecuniary interests declared at the meeting.

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutes.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor A Castle, with Councillor G Wilkinson in attendance; Councillor D Cohen, with Councillor B Anderson in attendance; and Councillor D Coupar, with Councillor J Jarosz in attendance as substitutes.

To receive and consider a report from the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development advising the Scrutiny Board on the procedural aspects of calling in a decision

The Board noted the Call In arrangements in accordance with the council’s constitution and that the options available to the Board were: to release the decision for implementation; or to recommend that the decision be reconsidered.

To receive and consider a report from the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development presenting the background papers to a decision which has been called in in accordance with the Council’s Constitution in relation to  West Park Centre.

The report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development presented the background papers to a decision which had been Called In in accordance with the council’s constitution. The decision was an Executive Board decision on the West Park Centre.

The Chair welcomed the following representatives to the meeting:

-  Councillor J Chapman – signatory to the Call In

-  Victoria Jaquiss – West Park Centre Campaign Group

-  Diane Patterson – YAMSEN

-  Douglas Kemp – West Park Residents’ Association

-  Martin Farrington – Director of City Development

-  Christine Addison – Chief Asset Management and Regeneration Officer

-  Neil Charlesworth – Community Assets Officer.

Councillor Chapman and the community representatives presented the argument for calling in the decision. This included the following points:

·  That the estimated sale value of the site quoted in the Executive Board report of £2.9M was not a large sum in the overall scheme of things set against the value of the centre to the community

·  There was no single alternative venue available with suitable acoustics, access and facilities for all the musical groups who were based at the West Park Centre

·  A new £800k local community facility would not be suitable for the music groups and was potentially not good value for money

·  The preference of Weetwood ward councillors for option 1 to be pursued, ie refurbishment and reopening of the West Park Centre

·  Concern that some groups had still not been found suitable alternative accommodation, particularly the larger arts organisations

·  That some of the alternative venues being used were not suitable in the longer term

·  The community value of the centre

·  Potential additional uses for a refurbished centre to boost occupation, for example as a youth hub

·  That no proper debate by councillors about the future of the centre had taken place

·  Questions over the accuracy of the costings provided

·  The importance of the inclusive work delivered by YAMSEN

·  The time, effort and funds invested by YAMSEN and its supporters in West Park Centre, and the limitations on its current activities

·  A lack of evaluation of the viability of the alternative options suggested in the Executive Board report

·  The implications of the reference to potential use of the site to meet the need for more school places

·  The local need for community facilities

·  The potential longer-term financial consequences of the decision.

In response, officers from City Development highlighted the following issues in support of the Executive Board decision:

·  That this was a difficult issue and the value of the building to its users and their aspirations to retain it were recognised

·  However the future of the centre had to be considered in the wider context of the council’s financial positions

·  Executive Board had also approved a broader paper on the future management of the council’s property portfolio at its July meeting, recognising that the current portfolio was unsustainable

·  That the Director had specifically recommended that external advice be taken on the works required and the relevant costings, in order to provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

In accordance with Scrutiny Board Procedure Rules, to consider the Board’s formal conclusions and recommendations arising from the consideration of the called-in decision.

Following a vote by members present, it was

RESOLVED – to release the decision for implementation.

(The meeting concluded at 11.40am.)