Issue - meetings

Investment Into Harrow's Tennis Infrastructure

Meeting: 06/07/2022 - Call-In Sub-Committee (Item 6)

6 Call In of the Cabinet Decision (23 June 2022) - Investment into Harrow’s Tennis Infrastructure pdf icon PDF 181 KB

(a)   Notice invoking Call In (pages   )

(b)   Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 23 June 2022 (pages  )

(c)   Report submitted to Cabinet on 23 June 2022 (pages    )

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee received the notices in respect of the call-in submitted by six Members of the Council in relation to a decision made by the Cabinet on 23 June 2022, on Investment into Harrow’s Tennis Infrastructure. 

 

The Chair advised the Sub-Committee on the suggested order of proceedings and reminded Members of the timings allowed for submissions and questions.

 

The Chair then invited the representative of the signatories to present their reasons for the call-in.

 

The representative began by explaining that the call in was on the decision to outsource operations of the tennis courts to an external provider and introduce charging, without any prior consultation.

 

The call in was based on the following five reasons.

 

1.              Inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision

 

a)              there had been no consultation with Ward Councillors prior to Cabinet making the decision to outsource the running of the publicly owned tennis courts within the parks in Harrow for profit;

 

b)              there had been no consultation with the Park User Groups prior to Cabinet making the decision to outsource the running of the tennis courts, as per the contract set out in the Park User Groups – Operational Framework;

 

c)              there had been lack of adequate consultation with current users of the tennis courts in Harrow and whether they supported or opposed the role out of charging and outsourcing to an external provider;

 

d)              the Cabinet report ignored and did not take into account the COMPACT agreement with the voluntary and community sector regarding consultation prior to a decision being made that would impact the sector;

 

e)              there had been lack of consultation with debt advice charities who had more relevant data on Harrow residents and their ability to pay, or not;

 

f)                the lack of consultation with way the decision was made contradicted the Nolan Principles; in particular, openness and personal judgement. For example, the decision to outsource had been made prior to consultation, therefore, ignored any views that may be made;

 

g)              the lack of communication or consultation had damaged future partnership working and relationships with residents and community groups.

 

2.              The absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision

 

The Cabinet report had insufficient information on the risks associated with the decision to outsource, particularly the potential impact on youth services and groups, spontaneous play, ability to pay, Park User Groups and schools. 

 

Insufficient attention had been paid to potential “unintended consequences” of outsourcing the running of the service:

 

§  there was no evidence base or pricing structure to support the decision. It is noted that the tennis operator would be responsible for the pricing strategy;

 

§  there were no contract limits on profits by the provider; and

 

§  free play would be forced into non-prime times, which would exclude weekends and evenings.

 

3.              The decision is contrary to the policy framework, or contrary to, or not wholly in accordance with the budget framework

 

The decision contradicted Council agreed policies that ensured there was free access to sports facilities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6


Meeting: 23/06/2022 - Cabinet (Item 18)

18 Investment into Harrow's Tennis Infrastructure pdf icon PDF 432 KB

Report of the Corporate Director of Place and the Director of Inclusive Economy, Leisure and Culture.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED:  That

 

(1)            an agreement with the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) for capital funding to renovate courts in Harrow’s parks from the LTA’s Renovation Fund be entered into, and the Corporate Director of Place be authorised to finalise the details of the funding agreement and take any further actions necessary to complete it;

 

(2)            the Corporate Director of Place and the Director of Finance, following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Community and Culture and the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Human Resources, be authorised to enter into a works contract between Harrow Council and the successful contractor for the renovation of the courts;

 

(3)            the commencement of a procurement to identify and contract with a supplier for the provision of a tennis court operator be agreed and the Corporate Director of Place and the Director of Finance, following consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Community and Culture and Finance and Human Resources, be authorised to enter into a contract between Harrow Council and the successful contractor, noting that the responsible Officer leading on the procurement would be the Head of Service – Culture and Leisure and that approval included authority to explore and decide the best contract model between the council and the operator, which model might include a straight/conventional contract, a works concession contract or any other model that would be most effective and also yield value for money to the Council); and

 

(4)            the Corporate Director of Place following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Community and Culture, be authorised to agree a consultation strategy in relation to the renovation of the courts.

 

Reason for Decision:  To enable the tennis courts in Harrow’s parks to be renovated to a playable standard, increasing participation in tennis in Harrow, and ensuring thatthe courts were maintained in the long term by being financially sustainable.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

 

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member/Dispensation Granted:  None.