Agenda item

5.1  The Chair opened this item by stating besides playing a vital role in supporting better outcomes in health, education, community cohesion and equalities, culture and the creative industries, leisure services provided many with access to leisure facilities particularly during the pandemic and contribute £10.8 billion to the UK economy each year.[1]

 

5.2  This session will cover a review of the Council’s leisure service offers, costs and the concessions available.  Anecdotal evidence from a survey in Kings Park Ward in the borough revealed many residents couldn't foresee any circumstances where they would attend one (leisure centre).  The scrutiny commission decided to explore the Council’s leisure services offers, costs and the concessions available.  The scrutiny commission decided to explore the council’s leisure facilities and services in the borough open to the public and asked for their service development plans. 

 

5.3  The Chair reminded all meeting attendees of the questions sent to the service area and GLL in advance of the meeting for a response.

 

5.4  The Chair welcomed to the meeting Ian Holland, Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from London Borough of Hackney (LBH); Katie Foulger, Partnership Manager for Hackney; Paul Lister, Head of Service for London from GLL and also in attendance was Cllr Kennedy, Cabinet Member for Health, adult social care, voluntary sector and leisure from LBH.

 

5.5  The Cabinet Member for Health, adult social care, voluntary sector and leisure highlighted in reference to leisure and leisure facilities in the borough the council had opened Britannia Leisure centre on target and within budget during austerity and a pandemic.  The Cabinet Member pointed out this was a great achievement and signalled the way forward for future service plans. 

 

5.5.1  The new administration will be asking the public to vote for and on proposals for the complete refurbishment of King Hall.  This is in addition to previous successes like Clissold Leisure Centre and the London Fields Lido Pool. 

 

5.5.2  The officer pointed out there are different activities put on by the Public Health Team and a project called Kings Park Moving Together.  The Cabinet Member offered to share a presentation about the project with the commission to provide information about the work and progress of the project.  This project has identified that there are residents in the borough that do not view leisure centre facilities for them to use.

 

5.6  The Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from LBH advised the report was as laid out and outlined the following main points from the report submitted in the agenda.

 

5.6.1  The paper has 2 sections the first section provides an overview of the councils leisure management contract and then covers the areas of customer satisfaction, social impact, fees and charges, usage, accessing leisure facilities, community initiatives, concessions, swimming, targeted programmes and initiatives, promotions, marketing and the website.

 

5.6.2  The officer pointed out since the commencement of the contract with GLL (2009) and with the interim measure in place for the pandemic, the partnership had improved the provision of facilities to residents in the borough.  However, it was acknowledged the last 2 years have been challenging in relation to the provision and the partnership with lockdowns and closures of facilities and the restrictions that were put in place.

 

5.6.3  The officer acknowledged there is more to do particularly in reaching the people who do not currently use the facilities and to target those who do not access the facilities.

 

5.7  Questions, Answers and Discussion

 

(i)  Members asked In relation to point 2.2 are all staff aware that cash should be accepted?   It has frequently not been the case at Britannia where cash has been refused. 

 

(ii)  Members asked if there are any facilities for pre-booking activities without having to pre-pay online?  Commenting even if cash is taken at the door those wanting to use cash frequently find the activities are already fully booked specially at weekends.  Thus leaving, cash payers effectively excluded.  Members suggested it would be good if some slots could be set aside for walks in.  Leaving some slots available or to take telephone bookings with the option to pay later in person using cash.

 

(iii)  Members commented the App often fails, and people see a spinning wheel, meaning they can’t book or view anything.  Members asked what investment was being made in this app and are there plans to re-open telephone lines (one centralised Hackney phone line).  It was highlighted sometimes the person taking the calls was acknowledgeable about Hackney facilities or specific leisure centre to answer questions.  

 

In response the Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from LBH asked for specific cases or incidents where cash is not being taken at centres.  The officer offered to investigate further.  The officer confirmed all leisure centres should be taking cash.  Highlighting all the reception areas were set up to take cash.

 

The situation with leisure centres is as pre covid where people can book online, walk in or at reception.  The officer explained they have never had the facility to make a booking over the telephone.  This is due to the volume of calls received.

 

It was highlighted that people can book 3,4 or 5 days in advance using one of the methods outlined above (online, through reception or by a walk in.

 

(iv)  Members followed up in relation to the above questions and the impact on families.  Explaining that for people with families the ability to go down to the leisure centre in advance to make a booking would be limited.  Members commented they remained concerned about customer service because getting an answer via telephone was not easy.  Members queried why GLL (Better) could not invest in a person to take bookings and answer the phone?  Members pointed out there is a limit to how online focus could represent good customer.  Members commented sometimes organisations need to accept they have to invest in getting a person to answer queries over the telephone.

 

In response the GLL officers highlighted in theory the suggestion may seem practical but currently they have 3 full time staff answering the phones.  The officer pointed out Hackney was the busiest London boroughs they managed.

 

As an organisation they have reviewed the customer journey and have been prioritizing areas for improvement.  One area identified was in their meet and greet / welcome (conciergerie).  At the Britannia Leisure centre this has been implemented.  This is to greet people attending for the first time or to help people who might be struggling to get into a leisure centre.

 

They are trying to get away from having people behind a desk or in the office answering phones.  Although it was acknowledged not everyone wants to use the app or book online.  GLL was of the view they had made online booking easy.  This has been the most positive why people want to access.

 

For the people struggling to access online they are able to go into the centres and talk to their concierge and they can book them into the session or answer their query.

 

GLL (Better) explained it would be very impractical to staff a telephone system for bookings.  This is not efficient or a sensible way for the service moving forward.

 

(v)  Members asked about people with language barrier and how they were supported to ensure they can access the facilities too?

 

In response the officers from GLL explained they have a diverse workforce and it is anticipated that this cohort are likely to come into leisure centre.  GLL do their best to facilitate this need.  In terms of deciding about interpretation for an individual they might user google translator or other platforms to help customers.

 

(vi)  Members pointed out that for the people who do not have apps or a smartphone they can find themselves holding on the phone for a long period of time (15 minutes) then being told to use the website.  The issue was the website was not responding.

 

(vii)  Members pointed out in the report in the agenda it highlights that all facilities have the same fees and charges however they are aware this is not true.  E.g., the Lido has a different price the West Reservoir too (outdoor swimming facilitates).  Member highlighted the over 60s cannot swim for free at the Lido and queried why?  Members asked why there was such a difference in cost for outdoor facilities.

 

In response the Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from LBH explained the cost of swimming across the borough at the leisure facilities is the same.

 

The initial programme for funding under 18, disabled people and carers came from DCMS funding.  The council took the decision not to include the Lido in the free-swimming programme due to the high volume of use.  Thus, directing the free-swimming offer to the pools that had the capacity to accommodate free swimmers.

 

The officer highlighted that the price to swim across all the pools was the same.  However, the West Reservoir is a very different offer and the cost of providing open water swimming is significantly higher than a regular pool.  This is largely due to the costs for the number of lifeguards needed and the safety requirements.  The costs reflect the additional costs associated with the level of supervision required for open water swimming.  For example, the Lido has 2 lifeguards on duty supervising a session.  The supervisory levels for the West Reservoir are significantly higher dependant on the number of swimmers.

 

The Officer confirmed there is no free swimming for under 18s or over 60s at the Lido but disabled people and carers do get free swimming at the Lido. 

 

(viii)  Members referred to the outreach work and asked about the demographics presented in the report and that the borough has approximately 60% minority groups.  Members pointed out there is a high proportion of white users or self-identifying as white.  Compared to a low percentage from minority groups. It highlights a disparity in terms of users.  Members asked for more information about the type of engagement  planned to encourage a more diverse range of users. 

 

(ix)  Members also asked in respect of the 10 hours of swimming has GLL carried out any analysis on the users taking up this offer?  Pointing out that although there is a local swimming slot at 7:45pm for women only for a single parent this is still inaccessible.

 

(x)  Members asked if they had a breakdown of the demographics and male / female use.  Members also asked if consideration would be given to extending the hours and increasing to different times of the day.

 

(xi)  Members asked if the facility was at capacity was priority given to residents?  Members informed concerns were being raised by residents struggling to access.

 

In response the Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from LBH informed the council does not have differential pricing for resident and non-resident.  Ultimately the operation is on a first come first serve basis.

 

In response GLL officers added the London Field Lido it is one of the most successful swimming pools in the country in relation to demand. 

 

The pandemic enabled GLL to a review how they operate.  Prior to the pandemic if it was a hot day there would be a long queue around the block.  The introduction of booking slots has increased the through put of people using the facilities and reduced the queues.  This has reduced the number of people using the facilities to sunbath.  During the pandemic and at the height of the restrictions they did limit use to residents only.  However for people with a paying membership they do have equal rights as residents to access.  GLL pointed out they have bookable slots every 10 minutes for the Lido.  This has been a better way of maximising capacity.

 

The Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from LBH added the council has made a commitment to development a learner pool at the lido.  The funding has been agreed and the council will deliver the learner pool which will expand the capacity and usage, particularly for young people.  This project is in the planning phase for the new financial year.  This is aimed at addressing the capacity in addition to the type of use by families in the Lido.

 

(xii)  Members commented there are regular swimmers and families who cannot afford a day out of the borough.  Members highlighted they may want to use the facility as a day out, but the slots are only available for swimming.  Members asked if they provide fun sessions at the Lido and how families access it?  Members asked how the session were promoted?

 

In response the Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from LBH informed they do have family swim sessions throughout the summer.  There are also free family swim lessons too.  They use these to encourage people who are potentially uncomfortable in water into the facilities.  They also get access to an instructor to help them to learn to swim.

 

The officer referred to the fees and charges schedule in the report and highlighted the Lido and all facilities have the lowest prices in relation to accessing leisure facilities.  Pointing out Hackney Council has the lowest fees and charges compared to other London boroughs.  The council’s aim is to have leisure facilities that are as accessible as possible. 

 

The council sets its fees and charges annually through its fees and charges process.  The officer pointed out GLL only control a small proportion of the charges, and these are generally around UK wide memberships (the charges applicable across all the GLL estate).  It was pointed out that Hackney Councils’ facilities are more accessible in terms of affordability compared to other London boroughs. 

 

In response to the question about the women only sessions the officer explained the 10 hours have developed over the last 4 months of the programme through engaging with the Council, GLL and users.  The times of the sessions have changed too in response to issues like childcare.  GLL also review the usage levels.

 

In terms of under representation in relation to participation, the council acknowledge they need to do more.  The have been working with colleagues in the Public Health Team and the Kings Park Moving Together project to obtain a better understanding.

 

The council is introducing initiatives.  For example working with the Black Swimming Association at Britannia to address the under representation in aquatics activities.  Teaching water safety first before getting people comfortable in the water, then progressing towards learning to swim.  It is anticipated that more initiatives like this are required.

 

There are plans to work with the Black Swimmers Association and British triathlon to introduce people into places like West Reservoir to feel safe in that space too.

 

The GLL officer referred to page 149-152 highlighting the list which outline the community groups GLL is engaged with.  It is quite targeted but agreed with the point that they could do more.  Following the pandemic, they want to do as much as possible for the community.  As a social enterprise their ethos is to focus on the community, and this is their unique selling point compared to other leisure service providers.  When looking at the ethnicity data they are considering what more they can do.  Whilst they recognise there is some gaps GLL officers pointed out this data does not represent the data that is held in some of their contracts and block bookings.  They anticipate improvements in the data compared to the data presented in the report.

 

Some of the success in relation to outdoor swimming and from the work with partners like the Black Swimmers Association; is aimed at doing more to engage those communities in outdoor swimming.  Typically, the West Reservoir is viewed as a white middle class swimming activity.  The council is using its partnership working to help break down stereotypes and myths in terms of outdoor swimming.

 

In reference to raising awareness there are a number of ways to do this e.g., digital, physical and door drops to specific communities in the more challenging demographics they want to encourage and increase participation.  GLL have also introduced a couple of initiatives called ‘give it a go’ this is a six-week trial at a discounted rate for people to come in that may not have used leisure centres before.  There is also a referral campaign.  As an organisation (not Hackney specific numbers) 12% of new members came from referrals because of this campaign.  GLL pointed out there are benefits if your referral joined as a member.

 

The GLL officer pointed out Hackney’s recovery for leisure services after the pandemic has been extraordinary.  There have been other boroughs that have struggled after the pandemic.  Investing in facilities like Britannia has been helpful to get people active and participating in exercise again.

 

The Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from LBH added there are lots of community groups and partners such as the Public Health team feeding in and utilising the leisure centres to improve participation and representation.

 

The Cabinet Member for Health, adult social care, voluntary sector and leisure added at an event in his ward after having a conversation with a resident he learned that through their engagement with Badu Sports they had learnt to swim at Britannia leisure centre with the Black Swimming Association.  This led to other family members learning to swim.  The Cabinet Members pointed out the partnership working with the Black Swimming Association is a positive action to increase participation for underrepresented groups.  Designed by the community for the community.

 

(xiii)  Members commented the report shows there is a lot of good work being carried out but as a Ward Councillor and local resident too; the challenge is that most people (including the Member) are unaware of the initiatives mentioned in the report (six-week reduced membership).  Knowing this Members are assuming most of the population would be unaware of this information if they do not currently attend leisure centres.  Members commented there seems to be an assumption that people will attend the gym or will engage with fitness.  Members pointed out many people feel out of place.

 

(xiv)  Members suggested the Council should get out to residents and work more with TRAs, TMOs and youth clubs.  Members pointed out there is good work and acknowledged they are working with some great partners but what is missing is more work with the wider community because a very small percentage of the population is being covered by these groups.  Members suggested to get non active people engaged they would need to reach out to them to highlight what is available.  The Members pointed out if they (as Councillors) are not fully aware of all the incentives available, and they are responsible for the policy decisions how will the public be aware? 

 

(xv)  Members urged the council to go out to residents.  Members commented that they think people may have misconceptions of what is available in a leisure centre and taking a taster session with support available would be helpful for people unfamiliar with using the equipment or service.

 

(xvi)  Members pointed out it was difficult to find out what was available via the app or website during the pandemic.  There was no information about opening time, changing facilities or what was available.

 

(xvii)  Members acknowledged that the Kings Park Moving Together did good work, but they wanted to encourage the Council to do more work with residents from the whole community to help all residents feel welcome.  Members acknowledged the introduction of the meet and greet at Britannia was good but suggested consideration was given to having support to do the activity too.

 

(xviii)  Members commended the community partnership with the foodbank and Ivy Street family centre.  Members hoped this was introducing people to services they might not have previously considered.  Member commented following recent set of visits to the Britannia by a resident for rehabilitation sessions (following a heart attack) it was highlighted that the resident was not introduced or given information about the other facilities on offer at the leisure centre.  Members suggested this was a good opportunity to give the people attending for the rehabilitation sessions a tour.  This might encourage older people to access the facilities too.

 

(xix)  A Member outlined their personal experience of using the website and trying to resolve an issue related to a previous membership. This experience left the impression that GLL’s customer service was less than satisfactory at the initial point of joining a year ago.  The Member commended the ‘meet and greet’ policy at Britannia.  The Member was impressed with this addition and the trainers in the gym.  The Member asked GLL to give more consideration to the website - viewed as cumbersome and designed for a large company.  The Members asked for GLL to give consideration to sectioning the website into borough level for residents.

 

(xx)  Members suggested more could be done with the telephone customer service too.

 

(xxi)  Members referred to the Council motion in relation to fire and rehire.  This expressed the councils disapproval of precarious work.  Members pointed out the Council has committed not to employ people on precarious contracts.  Members asked how GLL manage their work contracts and if they provided job security?

 

In response the officers from GLL thanked Members for the feedback and agreed they could do more in relation to touring and introducing all the facilities at the centre.  The GLL officers confirmed the suggestion would be feedback to the team. 

 

In response to the personal experience outlined.  The GLL officer advised as an organisation they did not get everything right during the pandemic.  They directed all the telephone calls to the centralised head office team.  Despite there being over 50 staff to answer calls it then became clear that they were not able to answer the borough specific leisure centre queries.  After reviewing, slightly later than required, they introduced a localised call centre.  At Kings Hall leisure centre they have 3 dedicated staff to answer the phone lines.  The centralised team has been answering 200 calls per day, this new local team is answering 98% of the call volume.  Following this the level of complaints had reduced and customer feedback has revealed things are improving.  The data is shaping the website and the areas of improvement.  It was agreed that the website covered a large range of information from existing to new users.  And recognised it could be challenging to navigate unless you understood where to find links.  GLL reported they are in the process of upgrading their IT system and the webpage was a fundamental part of this process.  The GLL officer pointed out the calls will help to shape the website changes.  The duty of answering calls was taken away from the receptionist physically serving customers in reception.  They acknowledged that there is more to do in relation to customer experience.  But that the changes to date are as moving the organisation in the right direction.

 

In response to the question about job security Hackney is a borough with the most diverse facilities.  There are approximately 150 permanent jobs available, but GLL struggle to recruit permanent.  GLL confirmed they do pay the London Living Wage.  Historically the leisure industry has always had a mix of permanent staff who have employment as a career in addition to a more transient population that maybe working in the industry while they are a student.  The teachers for classes are classified as flexible / casual workers.  There are approximately 400 classes a week.  These staff are a large part of the workforce in Hackney.  Officer explained flexible workers earn similar pay to the permanent staff but attract different benefits compared to the full-time staff employed (e.g., different benefits related to sickness, maternity or paternity).

 

The GLL officers added approximately 5 years ago they introduced minimum guaranteed hours for a person that wants to work part time on a part time contract.  The worker has flexibility with the number of hours they work per week.  These workers are staff who do not wish to work a set number of hours per week.  Their hours vary from week to week.  They currently have 15 of those contracts in place and they anticipate the number of these contracts will increase as they exit the pandemic.

 

GLL recognise the balance and mix is not as they would like but they are hopeful that they will get more permanent and fixed employment staff.  They will always have and need flexible workers in their workforce.

 

The GLL officer added that they had a recruitment day at Kings Hall centre.  They also go to colleges, universities, schools and other various institutions.  They held interviews all day for Hackney residents.  Over 100 residents were interviewed. 

 

(xxii)  Member asked for clarification in relation to part time staff contracts and if they are entitled to holiday and sick pay?

 

In response the GLL officers confirmed they have the same benefits, but it is prorated to the hours contracted to work.  If they are contracted to work 20 hours but work 30 hours the benefits are accumulated.

 

(xxiii)  Members also referred to the benefits and rates for flexible / casual staff?

 

In response the officers from GLL confirmed the rates for these staff are slightly increased from the rates of their permanent staff to cover the costs of annual leave.  Explaining they receive the same value and benefits but for permanent staff.  When they go on annual leave their pay is maintained during that period but for flexible staff are paid in advance so when they go on annual leave they use the reserves.

 

(xxiv)  Members asked what is the percentage of staff employed that are Hackney residents?

 

In response the officers from GLL advised they do not have the current figure at the meeting but at the last review this was 46%.

 

(xxv)  Members asked if GLL have any apprentice programmes or young people who want to become a personal trainer?

 

In response the officers from GLL informed they do work with various different groups like the Hackney Ways into Work Team and Hackney 100 (offering work experience placements).  They also have apprenticeship schemes running across all the leisure centres.  They have an internal scheme to train to managers (open to internal and external staff) and based on their progression through the leisure industry to senior roles.

 

On the recruitment day they were offering positions in gymnastics, lifeguards, football coaches and swimming teacher on funded courses.  The applications were open to all.  They were flexible contracts on fully funded courses with no costs to the resident.  Their preference was to look for permanent staff ranging from 10-hour contract to a 40-hour contract.  GLL also pointed out they offer a lot of opportunities to train and develop free of charge.

 

(xxvi)  Members asked if they take volunteers?

 

In response the officers from GLL confirmed they do take volunteers and have previously supported a range of volunteers in areas like the Gym, front of house and other various roles.  GLL is supportive of volunteering and are always willing to consider any groups or people looking to get into the leisure industry.  GLL also considers training and development.

 

In addition, the other GLL officer informed that due to the pandemic a number of things stopped were apprenticeship schemes due to the pandemic because leisure centres were closed.  The officer pointed out apprenticeships are starting to resume.

 

In Hackney they have recruited a people manager.  This role is very unusual for a borough.  The officer in this role will lead the recruitment programme in Hackney.  The manager in this role will also lead on the other initiatives mentioned like work experience, volunteering etc.  The officer pointed out the leisure industry is not exempt from e recruitment challenges like other industries.  The demand is high, but they do not get the candidates.  This is their biggest challenge, but they continue with recruitment for their facilities.

 

In response to the question about getting more people into the leisure centres and promoting the facilities on offer the Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from LBH informed it was not solely the responsibility of GLL.  The Council’s services like, Parks and Leisure, Public Health and Young Hackney all have a role to advocate and direct people to facilities and programmes.

 

The officer pointed out there is the 50 plus programme which is delivered in the leisure centres, there are health programmes like the stroke rehabilitation programme; there are other activities like the football youth league that is delivered at Hackney Marshes. 

 

It was highlighted that GLL have also employed a new community sports manager.  The manager’s role will be outreach, making connections within the community, promoting the facilities and opportunities to bring new people into the leisure centres.

 

(xxvii)  Members referred to the Queensbridge areas with older people accommodations and commented the leisure centre would be good location for the over 60s to come together to socialise.  Members asked if the big space could be redesigned to accommodate the older population?

 

In response the Head of Leisure, Parks and Green Spaces from LBH informed the Queensbridge centre has been refurbished and there is currently no planned programme to redesign the centre.  In reference to Queensbridge the officer pointed out that the Public Health team in Hackney Council, commission an organisation called Sharpe End to deliver services to older people at the leisure centre in Queensbridge.  This organisation delivers an extensive programme of activities and some social based activities.  This programme is heavily subsided with significant discounts to that cohort of residents.  The officer suggested the Councillor refers residents to the Sharpe End to engage with their programme of activities.  This is targeted at older residents.

 

The Chair thanked officers for their attendance.