Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods.

RESOLVED-

a)  That the contents of the report and appendices be noted.

b)  That a further report be submitted to the Committee in due course, once a City-wide charging policy has been produced in relation office and activity space permanently occupied by centre users.

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods submitted a report updating the Committee on the 2009/10 and 2010/11 budget position in respect of the operation of Community Centres by Area Committees across the City, and highlighting specific details in relation to those centres which were the responsibility of the NE Inner Area Committee.

Further to Minute No.18, the Committee discussed whether or not Appendix 3 to the report should remain as exempt information.

RESOLVED (by 4 votes for to 3 against) – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information, on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

Agenda Item 10 – Appendix 3 of Community Centres Report – Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

(NB:    In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.5, Councillor Lobley wished it to be recorded that he voted against the above decision.)

In brief summary, the main points of discussion were:-

·  More detailed information was required from Corporate Property Management regarding what their management fee covered in terms of the NE Inner area, what maintenance had been carried out, and at what cost, on community centres under the Committee’s control, what the backlog of maintenance consisted of, and what were the plans to tackle this backlog.  Queries were also raised regarding what was perceived as the high costs of providing caretaking services and whether this service could be provided more economically via other means.  The report back should also include reference to this issue.

·  It was noted that the Department was working on producing a City-wide policy on the issue of charges/concessions for office accommodation and storage space occupied by centre users, and it was accepted that such a policy needed to be open, honest and transparent, so that charges or non-charges for different users could be justified and, if necessary, challenged.

·  Due to the economic situation facing local authorities, and the fact that, by and large, community centres operated at a loss, serious consideration would have to be given to what charges/rents should be levied and which organisations they should apply to.  In reaching these decisions, various factors needed to be taken into account, such as what facilities were available in a Ward, e.g. community centres, use of school premises, the type of activity taking place (and the possible consequences of introducing a charge/rent) and what other options there might be, e.g. leasing out the community centre, such as 53 Louis Street , or even selling off a community centre.

·  In response to a Member’s query, the Area Manager stated that Members could be provided with a list of what type of facilities, and associated costs, were available in particular Wards (as had been done previously in Chapel Allerton Ward), but this kind of detailed information would take a while to collate.  It certainly could not be provided in time for the October meeting.

RESOLVED –

a)  That the contents of the report and appendices be noted.

b)  That a further report be submitted to the Committee in due course, once a City-wide charging policy has been produced in relation office and activity space permanently occupied by centre users.