Agenda item

8.1  Ian Holland, Head of Leisure and Green Spaces, presented a paper, which was available in the agenda packs.

8.2  The substantive points made at this stage were that:

·  The service incorporated:

o  Leisure with a budget of £1.51 million, the majority of which was allocated to the management fee for the management of Leisure Centres in the borough.

o  Parks, with a budget of £2.93 million, which was largely accounted for by staff costs.

o  Sports and Physical Activity with a budget of £290,000 to fund the delivery of a number of services enabling physical exercise.

·  The amounts above did not include the costs associated with some facilities which were currently corporately funded or paid for via reserves.

·  Significant pressures on the services included:

o  An explosion of usage of Parks as more residents wished to use the much improved green spaces of the borough. This was a huge positive but also brought pressures on already aging infrastructure in terms of paths and buildings.

o  In regards to London Fields in particular, the popularity of the site as a summer venue and an area to socialise in had brought challenges around increased summer cleansing cost and the need to greater enforcement. £310,000 had been allocated from the corporate budget to fund summer cleansing and enforcement, but the service needed to work towards funding this itself.

o  There were growing levels of anti-social behaviour in green spaces as they were increasingly used as party venues.

o  On grounds maintenance, there were demands for the service to use different methods of weed control than Glyphosate. However, this was a cheap and effective method compared to weeding by hand.

o  Increased use of Leisure facilities (Clissold Leisure Centre and London Fields Lido in particular) brought issues around capacity and the ability to continue providing a good service. This was coupled with a number of facilities being advanced in years (the Kings Hall and Brittania Leisure Centres). These issues went alongside (rightfully) expectations of increasing quality.

o  The high use of some facilities compared with a low usage of others (West Reservoir and Queensbridge Sports Centre)

o  Increasing costs of utilities

o  A significant amount of funding for sports and physical activity came from external sources, and was time limited.

·  Since 2010 savings of 38% had been achieved from the Leisure area of the service, predominantly though renegotiations on the management fee for leisure facilities.

·  Parks and Green Spaces had delivered 24% savings, through staff restructures but latterly more from income generating activities.

·  The service was confident that renegotiations on the Leisure contract would bring additional savings.

·  To answer the pressures for additional spending reductions, there were a number of potential options which Members could use the Task Groups to debate:

o  The potential for further income generation from Parks.

This could include greater advertising and the raising of money from ice cream and other catering concessions.

Thought could also be given to the extent that events in parks (and outside of them) should be used as an income generator. The Service expected an income of £130,000 from this in 2015/16. The Hackney Half Marathon (£50,000) and funfares in parks (£45,000) were the biggest contributors. Haringey and Tower Hamlets reported income levels of around ten times this (although the caveat was that they had the very large venues of Finsbury Park and Victoria Park).

The lowest level of income from events in Parks came from community events, which also involved the majority of officer input. Consideration could be given to the viability of continuing support.

The Task Group could use a future meeting to explore their appetite to partly meet increasing financial challenges by catering for more large scale events. At present there was one 7,000 to 10,000 event in Haggerston Park. Consideration could be given towards the appetite for more of these, alongside information on the income that would be likely to be gained.

It did need to be noted that only one venue – Hackney Marshes – was of a size that could cater for events of 50,000 – 100,000 people, and the Task Group might wish to give consideration to the potential benefits and disbenefits of accommodating requests for the delivery of events of this size.

o  Possibilities for higher amounts of sponsorship

Adidas had paid £30,000 to the Hackney Marshes Centre for 1 month. An exploration could be made as to any further opportunities.

o  Changes to locking and unlocking arrangements.

Currently 50% of parks remained open at night (often due to them being common land).

o  Stopping seasonal bedding in parks.

o  Less grass cutting

At present cutting was done 20-22 times per year. This was reflected in the attractiveness of parks. However, a number of other Councils were doing 14-16 cuts.

o  Licensing more services currently delivered in Parks privately

This could include fitness classes and professional dog walkers.

8.3  A Member of the Task Group noted that the paper did not give figures on the savings required. He said that while it appeared that more events could help meet saving requirements, that he would like more information on the impact that these would have. He asked where the majority of savings would be likely to come from for 2016/16.

8.4  The Head of Leisure and Green Spaces said that the majority of any savings achieved for 2015/16 were likely to come from renegotiating the Leisure Contract. Generally, any savings in addition to this would either need to come from savings on staff (which accounted for 78% of the overall service) with a resulting impact on quality, or from increased income generation. In addition to the general pressure to find savings, the Service needed to find a way of funding the summer cleansing and enforcement activity in London Fields which had been temporarily funded corporately.

8.5  In response to a question on how a reduction in subsidy per Leisure visit had been achieved, the Head of Leisure and Green Spaces said that this had been through increased general usage and renegotiations on the leisure contract.

8.6  It was celebrated by a Member that the Leisure and Green Spaces Service had been brought together with the Public Health function. He went onto ask whether, with funding for the Council falling, whether there could be an end result of some private leisure providers in the borough catering for the affluent while the offer for other sections of the population lessened. He asked if greater means testing for Council owned facilities could be introduced to help continue provision for all.

8.7  The Head of Leisure and Green Spaces said that he did not foresee the leisure offer for all residents reducing. The renegotiation of the contract would not result impact on levels of provision. The Manifesto committed the Council to expanding provision. Steps already taken as a result of this had been lighting in London Fields activity area. Further areas for improvement were being explored. Means testing was not currently being looked at, but there were free activities for some residents, and NHS referrals also.

8.8  A Member said that in his view that, across a range of its services, the Council needed to make clear to residents the standards that it was able to deliver with the resources that it had. It then needed to invite and explore community offers of support. He was aware of work community groups did to improve their environments; examples were the Tree Musketeers and residents in the Dalston Square development who were now doing their own planting. He asked whether the Leisure and Green Spaces Service was using the capacity of community organisations and if there was room for it to do more.

8.9  The Head of Leisure and Green Spaces said that the service did use the community to make improvements. In terms of the Tree Musketeers, their commitment and knowledge was invaluable and the service was exploring how it could offer funding and support to enable them to maintain and plant more of the trees in parks. Allotments were nor managed by the Allotment Association and this worked well.

8.10  A note of caution needed to sound however around the capacity of the community to fully answer the shortfalls in public funding. Initiatives in communities often worked really well and were driven by a motivated and engaged resident. However, upon the community champion no longer being able to commit, the Council often needed to setback in. Also, while community champions provided a valuable and inspirational role, by necessity spaces they helped manage were often still reliant on Council Services such as grounds maintenance and waste collection.

8.11  The Cabinet Member for Housing added to this and said that while community run gardens worked very well, that there were still significant support costs involved.

8.12  The Chair thanked the Head of Leisure and Green Spaces for the presentation and for answering the questions asked so thoughtfully and comprehensively.