Agenda item

Councillor Harden referred to consultation and commented that there appears to be a slight misapprehension that this is a done planning application and clarified this is not; so this was not a targeted consultation but a Borough wide one, adding that the Council carries out consultation on various issues.  In this case it is a consultation on the relocation of the athletics track to the identified site.  There is no planning application, if this was to go through as a Council decision it would still have to go through the planning process and all the criteria that applies.

M Rawdon introduced the report, intended to inform members of the feedback from the recent athletics track consultation. It was made known that the survey was advertised in Digital Digest to a consultation panel of over 1,000 people, through a press release and through our social media channels. There was a return of 548 responses. Of this, 55.3% stated that they did not support the re-location; 44.7% stated that they would.

M Rawdon suggested that it was noted that some of those who stated that they would support it would only do so once further consultation had taken place. 

M Rawdon went on to advise that of those who responded, 59.3% stated that they had previously used the track at Jarmans Park. Of this figure, 63.9% said they were unlikely to use it if moved to Cupid Green. 22.3% said they were likely to use it; the remainder were unsure. Almost 17% stated that they would prefer to see the current track invested in and refurbished. The open comments in the literal section of the survey can be found in appendix 1, where samples of both positive of negative comments can be found.

Councillor England commented that committee have “heard powerfully” from the speakers and the public again.  His view is the message of this consultation is a resounding ‘don’t do this’. 

The project was compared to the change of ownership of the local Sportspace; in that neither had a “lack of strategy”. The issue of transparency arose once again in reference to Councillor Pringle’s former point.  The Councillor disagreed that feedback was nearly 50/50 but instead suggested it was 7:1 against and referenced 129 people having specifically said in consultation that they wanted to keep the track at Jarmans. 

Councillor England proposed to move a motion that this proposal be discontinued and that a feasibility study be carried out for making the best use of Jarman Park.

Councillor Fethney offered his view that the motion should move to vote.

The Chairman advised that he would like to hear comments from the rest of the committee before moving to vote.

Councillor Pringle added that she would like to re-iterate on the importance of different types of activity for the community. She referred to the importance of informal exercise, many people use instead of formal exercise. She acknowledged the importance of Cupid Green in providing the community with informal exercise such as dog walking and football is just as important as a formal sports running track. 

Councillor Imarni asked the Chairman to reiterate, before the vote, why this report is here and the scope of this committee in terms of their voting on this particular subject.

The Chairman, following consultation with J Doyle, confirmed the report front sheet sets out the recommendation of the report; that Members consider the response from the consultation.  The Chairman clarified that it is not the role of this committee to make decisions, but to scrutinise and make recommendations/variations to reports.  This committee can not to dictate whether a decision gets voted down or not; that decision making authority falls to Cabinet and Full Council. 

The Chairman proceeded to read aloud an email received from Councillor Wyatt-Lowe, which went as follows;

Commendable idea to do it using in-house resources. The responses are practically 7:1 against, so I would suggest that the idea is totally dropped. I can see the response of the Dacorum Athletic Club needs to be followed in detail. Item 4, the suggestion of 64% of responders who had previously used the track would not do so if it were moved, seemed compelling; but perhaps this would be compared with other studies where this sort of question has been asked. The responders would have interest in maintaining the status quo, and therefore may not be truthful about their intention.

Councillor Imarni commented that in 2.1 of the conclusions states that there are “challenges and issues identified within the response to this consultation exercise, which the council would need address if the decision was approved to re-locate the athletics track”. She asked that, considering that comment, why was the incomplete strategy being proposed?

Councillor England clarified the motion he is proposing is that the committee recommend that this proposal be discontinued and a feasibility study be carried out on the Jarman Park.

Councillor Pringle suggested her recommendation is that the time and money that would otherwise be spent looking at development at Cupid Green be spent looking how Jarman Park can be developed for the benefit of the community.

Councillor Fethney agreed with Councillor Pringle’s recommendation and added his view that this consultation is flawed.

Councillor Imarni expressed that she does not feel the quality and detail that have been included in any of the sports related reports have not been adequate, and expressed her feeling that it demonstrates;

• A lack of depth in the report
• A lack of correspondence with local sports groups and residents
• No explanation as to the necessity of the moving of the track
• Cupid Green being a poor choice for a new track
• The funding plans being unspecific
• A neglect of the people’s will
• No addition of subjects discussed in June’s meeting
• As a consequence of these things, there is a general consensus that the report is not ready to be presented to the cabinet.

Councillor Banks expressed her view that the report is good and that there is no issue with the information gathered, adding that the survey accurately reflects the lack of desire among the public for a new track and so the survey has given us the evidence that we need.

Councillor Imarni requested it be noted that she does not want to play party politics with these issues; many member of the committee have given a great deal of time at great personal cost in order to represent constituents and it has had nothing to do with which party each councillor represents. 

The Chairman confirmed that this item is already on the Cabinet agenda, it will be considered by them.  What can be done by this committee is make a recommendation.

[An audio malfunction occurred and the meeting was disrupted for a few minutes whilst a loud noise omitted from the speakers]

The Chairman restarted the meeting and confirmed the following recommendations to Cabinet;

1)    That the Cabinet reviews the report and re-looks at all of the consultation responses.

2)    That they review the financial case and community benefits of relocating the track.

3)    That they review the suitability of the site.

4)    That they consider the interpretation of the consultation, finding the accurate statistics and to consider these statistics in reaching their decisions.

5)    That in due course, the covenant is looked at

Councillor Williams stated that this has been purely a consultation on the re-location of the athletics track to Cupid Green, a first stage consultation to gauge appetite for such a move.  He responded to two of the queries that have come up, confirming that there is no covenant on the existing Jarmans Athletics Track site, it is a separate title to the Leisure World site which had a covenant on from the Jarmans family, further confirming that it was not part of the rubbish site and soil checks have revealed it has no underlying contaminations issues.  

Councillor Williams went on to advise that, whilst he would not ordinarily do this, he felt it would be appropriate for the benefit of this committee and certainly for the residents here tonight with comments, that he and Councillor Harden have reviewed the consultation and will be making comment to Cabinet next week; it was intentional asking the report to come to this committee with no recommendation because it was the intention for this committee to debate this item without the benefit of any pre-conceived recommendations.  He confirmed that when this goes to Cabinet, their recommendation to Cabinet is that the Council does not pursue the relocation of the athletics track.

Councillor Williams reiterated that this was an exercise in judging the appetite for a relocation to Cupid Green; there is a very clear and concise message that is not something the public supports, we recognise that and the project will not proceed.

[There was a short break in the meeting while the public gallery attendees for Items 8 & 9 left the Chamber].

The Chairman thanked Councillor Williams and confirmed that the meeting would move on to agenda item 6 and invite forward the speakers for this item (see item 233 – Public Participation).