An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in accordance with the rules as to public participation
Minutes:
Matthew Bullard has sent an email to all councillors in regards to his concerns. He said the following in regards to item 9;
I can no longer bear the council making significant sport and leisure decisions that affect huge numbers of residents without being able to demonstrate that those decisions are following any kind of logical strategy…No matter the subject area, decent plan or strategy is crucial… I would urge councillors the importance of getting this document right; particularly given the current strength of feeling in the community about first sports leisure contracts and now the track. Once you have recognised the importance of this document, please ask yourself… “Will the health issues identified in the document be addressed by delivering this strategy?” No they won’t …“Does it adequately explain what, when, who and how?” No. “Does its structure work?” No… “Does it mention relocating significant facilities such as the track?” No it doesn’t. “Does it set out how its delivery will be resourced and funded?” No. Most importantly, could Jo Public read it and understand what sport in decorum will be like in 2024. Plainly and simply, no.
The Chair thanked Matthew Bullard for his comments and opened for questions.
Cllr Harden offered clarification that it was not two attempts; the previous paper that came to scrutiny was an original draft which went out to consultation, Committee had consultation on as well, so this is a re-write from the original draft following on from the consultation period.
Councillor England thanked Matthew for the email he circulated earlier in the day. He said that Matthew deals with strategies in his day to day job and if the government have given him a job we need to listen to what he suggests.
Cllr England went on to pick out a few highlights from the report; it states that it is usual for a strategy to explain how the overarching aim will be achieved through breaking it down into a number of smaller objectives. It identifies three objectives which come late in the strategy, down in Section 4 and stated his view that none of them are specifically measurable or specific; in Matthew Bullard’s words, would ‘joe public’ know what the delivery of these would look like. The Cllr reiterated his view that the objectives are meaningless.
Cllr England referred to Section 5 of the strategy and the four further commitments or objectives set out and expressed his view that they are no reference to the proceeding three in the overarching aim and that these would also all fail the ‘joe public test’.
Cllr England expressed his view that he regards Matthew as a credible aid to the committee and his view that he the committee should listen to him.
The Chairman stated that Matthew Bullard is here today as a resident of Dacorum.
Cllr England responded that he is aware that Matthew is here in a personal capacity.
Councillor Imarni thanked Matthew and reserved her comments until Committee has examined the other aspects of the strategy and bring them all together, stating that otherwise she believed there might be a significant amount of duplication and some level of confusion. She then assured Matt that she was not dismissing his views.
Steve Day said the below on item 9;
My name is Steve Day. I am speaking tonight as the founder of the (Facebook group) “Leisure Facilities are Not for Profit”, although for transparency I am a trustee of Dacorum Sport Trust, although I am not speaking in that capacity tonight. I would like to say that I feel that the cart has been put before the horse and I would like to be able to respond to the things that you good people are going to say, but nevertheless I will carry on.
With regard the track; don’t do it, the public have spoken.
Steve Day said the below on item 8;
With regard the strategy; no grant giving body is going to give you money based on that. It is not fit for purpose, get the experts to do it.
And here comes the question; clearly there is a huge gap between the community and the council looking at the track relocation and the sports strategy, plus previous sport issues. I’ve witnessed that the council refuses to respond to reasonable requests for information, from both public and Councillors, uses freedom of information and GDPR to delay and avoid answering legitimate questions, uses commercial and confidentiality without proper reference to public interest, doesn’t give councillors the full story, doesn’t have the industry experience to develop or manage a sports strategy, moves responsibility around when they’re challenged, doesn’t provide balanced reports preventing councillors from making proper decisions, and defames individuals and doesn’t give the right to reply. But the thing that gets me is the icing of the cake; we put in a petition with 8,872 people and it was rejected because of a technicality so in my view this Committee is there to do the checks and balances, and to ensure that these things don’t happen, so I urge this committee to debate this and take it to full council. This will ensure that the people who voted for them see the officers and cabinet are being held to account. I asked to respond to the debate later but I was denied that opportunity so I guess that’s my time up. Thank you.
The Chairman thanked Steve Day for his comments and for keeping to time. The Chairman stated that there were no specific question in the presentation, rather comments about the people doing the report. He therefore asked the speaker to return to his seat and confirmed that the Committee will debate the item after the officers have presented their paper.
Cllr Imarni referred to the December and January meetings and pointed out that anyone who was at those meetings would realise that this committee did quite robust scrutiny of the Sports Strategy. Cllr Imarni expressed her view that it is wrong to say this particular committee is not scrutinising property; the committee was here until 1am on 10th January debating issues around proposed changes in the sports leisure tender and similarly a couple of months ago when the strategy came up originally, a number of committee members were quite vocal about the inadequacies and hence as a committee, it was asked for it to be revised; that is why the strategy is being reviewed here tonight.
Mandi Tattershall asked the below question on item 8;
Following the debacle surrounding the leisure contract, it seems to me that public assets and money are again being misused, this time under the guise of having to build houses and pocketing the difference. This is clearly a flawed proposal that takes money out of sports services and leaves the facilities in a worst case scenario. If it proceeds, I and many of the people who replied to the consultation will be appalled that, yet again, the cabinet has ignored massive public participation and opposition. Can I ask the scrutiny committee to get a clear and resounding no to the track proposal and put in place stringent mechanisms to avoid the cabinet putting money way ahead of the community who elected them? Thank you.
The Chairman thanked Mandi and confirmed that the item will be discussed after Officers have presented the report.
Claire Hobson asked the below question on item 9;
I did debate long and hard about whether I would actually bother turning up because I really don’t think that the Cabinet and the Council, I take Councillor Imarni’s comments, I include those and take them into account, but she is the minority I think of Councillors that have demonstrated that they are listening to citizens, but I do feel very strongly about this so I did come. I have come here in the capacity of someone who has been involved in grassroots cricket for over ten years as a coach, player, parent and umpire. My comment on the strategy is following on from the others I think, we’ve lost the best bit of the first version, which were the pictures, I think that’s a real shame and I would just follow with everybody else, it’s a very flimsy document, its very motherhood and apple pie, there’s no real substance, and definitely no evidence. It is not clear what evidence the council has used in drafting it in terms of the reasons why things need to change and why things are a priority and others aren’t, again it comes with no sort of business case with money attached to it. So my question on the strategy is, what’s been involvement of local clubs, so cricket is one example, but many others including Dacorum and Tring Athletics Club?
This is a real missed opportunity to co-create a document with local sports clubs and local residents. I think it would be fantastic if you would put this version back in the bin and open up an open debate where you design something and actually consult on it to actually do some serious co-creation, I think you would win back a lot of trust from citizens.
Claire Hobson asked the below question on item 8;
This is this is linked to the strategy, I know it’s not the same agenda item, but what has been the view of Dacorum and Tring Athletics Club on the removal of the track, be very interesting to know that?
The Chairman thanked Claire for her presentation and for keeping to time and advised that the committee would come back to the questions later in the meeting when Officers have presented their report.
Sylvia Fitzwilliam asked the following of item 8;
I’m here on behalf of Dacorum and Tring Athletics club. In 1988 the minutes of the meeting between Dacorum Borough Council and Dacorum and Tring Athletics club regarding the planning of Jarman field track, it was noted that the Council’s aim was to convey the pre-hold to a national, charitable body that would ensure that its market value was set as nil, and that it would continue for all time to be available for the public use as an athletic track. The land had been given to the Council by Alderman Jarman specifically for that purpose.
I have three questions:
1) Why is there a need to move the track?
2) Has the council considered consulting England Athletics (our governing body) for their best practice for track playout?
3) Have Dacorum schools been approached on the whole issue? Because Dacorum Athletic Club and Dacorum schools are the major users of the track.
Dacorum Athletics club has 500 members and growing. The Cupid Green site is completely unsuitable for parking, I know parking is a big issue everywhere and it is a big issue here. Parking is the main problem, but also the track layout as it has been proposed is not suitable because it doesn’t take account of the actual events that take place and the number of events that take place and the number of people involved, so I think consultation with the athletic club and schools is necessary.
The Chairman thanked Sylvia for her presentation and adhering to the time limit and asking clear and concise questions, advising that the item will be discussed later in the meeting.
The Chairman then moved the meeting to debate of Item 9 of the agenda – Sports Strategy Update, Physical Activity & Sports Strategy Update, please see minute OS/131/18.
Denise said about item 8;
The most important thing here is the loss of a well-used local park. I use the park 3 times a day to walk my dog and it is the only green space to serve Cupid Green, Woodhall Farm, Hunters Oak, Swallow Fields and the new estate next to Hunters Oak, and when St Albans build all the hundreds of extra houses Cupid Green playing fields will be their nearest green space too. This park is too small to become the athletics track.
You can see from the plans that it has been shoehorned into the site. Some of the houses bordering the park will be cheek-by-jowl with the track. There is insufficient parking the road into the park is too narrow to take coaches and will put more pressure onto the local area on event days. The surrounding estates don’t have the extra capacity for extra parking. Many football games are played in the park, which will be lost if the track is squeezed onto the site. Leave the track where it is. The athletics club don’t want to move there, they have a perfect set up where it is, they have hundreds of parking spaces and plenty of facilities surrounding it.
Also, the local council have not notified residents at all. I’ve only found out through social media. The many people I have spoken to are very upset about losing this lovely little park there are other much larger green spaces which would be much more suitable where parking and amenities could be built. On event days the noise and light pollution will be heard by a huge number of people in a surrounding residential area. Leave this park alone.
The Chairman thanked Denise.
Howard Russell asked the below questions on item 8;
Do the council agree that it will be devastating for the Cupid Green residents in the happy, quiet land that will be lost if this track is relocated there?
Faced with an overwhelming rejection of this proposal, will the council ignore this response and progress with the project anyway? And if they do, will they return the field back as they found it if the athletics club move to a more amenable Council in St Albans. Does the committee agree that if the vote is made by the residents now then this project will be cancelled? If the main reason for relocating the track is to make way for another development, what is this other development and what is the main benefit perceived by the council that justifies the relocation? Does the council agree that the net benefit for sport and youngsters would be negative if the track was relocated because schools in the immediate vicinity of the existing track are more appropriate for the club? You would be depriving Bennett’s End of their existing facility and taking away football from Cupid Green. If the project is approved to progress after this meeting, do the residents still have the opportunity to protest against the development and is there a requirement for the council to include such protest in their decision making? How will the council gain or lose in actual financial terms if the track is relocated- or if it is not? We may ask for this under freedom of information.
Why does the council plan to directly contact residents after the solution to progress the project when the ability of the residents to object would be seriously compromised and the project already decided?
Why did the council not inform the residents by unsolicited direct mail, or lamp post notices, rather than obscure solicited online methods? Given the precedence already set by other recent consultations and the ease at which they could have respectively treated the residents. Can you also confirm that the council received 60 additional letters accepted by, Councillor Bhinder, were included in this count?
The Chairman thanked the speaker and moved the meeting to debate of Item 8 of the
agenda – Sports Strategy Update – Relocation of the Athletics Track, please see minute
OS/130/18.
Item 6 speakers
Sandy Palmer addressed the Chair and advised that she did ask to speak on this item but the request was rejected as it was submitted late. The Chair agreed to allow 1 minute.
Sandy Palmer said the following in regards to Item 6;
It’s noted from the reports that target set for DENS will be revised downward to ensure that they are more realistic. It’s acknowledged that DENS deal with some very vulnerable people, but this service is operating in a failing system on which it relies. Mental health services, drug and alcohol services and, of course, access to social housing, have all been squeezed under the austerity agenda. The cuts in all of these budgets, in particular Public Health, are impacting on DENS’ ability to support their clients in turning their life around. I ask of this committee to protest and make our residents aware of the impact of this system failure on services and on our homeless and DENS in particular as the subject of tonight’s meeting.
Mandi Tattershall asked the following in regards to Item 6;
I’ve also read the reports of the Elms Continual Improvement review September 2018 and I noted there was a significant increase in the 18-25 year olds; I think it went from about 2% to about 25%. This cohort is in involved in low-level drug use, which quite often leads to eviction on the grounds of ASB. My question is, what are your plans for dealing with this young cohort other than eviction, as surely this is just sending these young people back into the streets and through the revolving door?
The Chairman thanked the speakers and confirmed the questions will be considered after the officers have presented their report.
The Chairman moved the meeting to Item 6 of Item 8 of the agenda – Elms Contract
Performance Report, please see minute OS/128/18.