Agenda item

To consider the decisions made by the Cabinet at their meeting held on 9 September 2014 in relation to the above item, which has been called in by Cllrs Ayre, Cuthbertson and Orrell in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.  A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in relation to the call-in, together with the original report and the decisions of Cabinet.

Members received a report which asked them to consider the decisions made by the Cabinet at their meeting on 9 September 2014 in relation to the procurement for the Community Stadium and City Leisure Facilities contract. The report reminded Members that the call in reasons did not include Cabinet’s separate recommendation to Council for the approval of £4m Prudential Borrowing for capital investment in replacement leisure facilities as call in rules did not apply to matters referred to Council for decision.

Two pieces of information had been circulated to the committee in advance of the meeting. The first of these was a statement from Patrick Crowley, Chief Executive of York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, in support of the scheme. The second was an email from Councillor Brian Watson, Independent Guildhall Ward Councillor, in which he expressed his support for the original scheme but raised concerns at the new proposals including concerns over the future of swimming in the city and the introduction of retail and its effect on the city centre.

Details of the Cabinet’s decision were attached as Annex A to the report and the original report to the Cabinet meeting attached as Annex B.

The decision had been called in by Councillors Ayre, Cuthbertson and Orrell on the following grounds:

·        The failure to publish a business plan, an analysis of the four bids or any detail on the commercial land deal.

·        The failure to consult key groups such as the users of Waterworld or local residents in Huntington.

·        The lack of any evidence of genuine community input on the proposals or proper cross-party discussion.

·        The failure to commit to keeping Yearsley Pool open in the long-term.

·        The concerns raised publically by the chairman of York City of York Council Knights.

·        The lack of an assessment of the impact the new proposals will have on the city centre.

Councillor Cuthbertson addressed the meeting on behalf of the calling in Members. He explained that they had called in the decision due to the failure to engage with residents and elected members and a failure to put forward proposals with a proper public business case or proof that they offered value for money. He raised concerns about the outcome of the procurement process, the future of York City Knights and that Huntington residents had not been consulted and users of Waterworld had not been consulted with regard to the future of swimming facilities in York. He sought a commitment to keeping Yearsley open long term and to consult residents with regard to current proposals.  In response to a question from Members, he confirmed that the reason for calling in the decision had been to get access to the information at the point of decision and not to delay the project.

Councillor Crisp, Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism, responded in some detail to each of the reasons for call . She advised that due diligence had been undertaken by the project team and the council’s finance and legal staff confirming that the bid submitted provided a comprehensive business case. The scheme had been subject to the most extensive consultation over the years. With regard to the future of Yearsley Pool she drew Members attention to the information contained in the report and stated that GLL would review the options for Yearsley once they had operated it for a period of time. York City Knights had now removed any statement and were currently in positive and advanced final negotiations over the matter and had now agreed terms and agreed to sign. The proposed retail element of the project would be focused on uses that were complimentary to the stadium and associated sport and leisure facilities and proposals would seek to minimise any impact on the city centre.

The Chair advised Members that it was not possible to discuss the business case in detail or funding at this meeting. With regard to consultation, both the Community Stadium Manager and Cabinet Member confirmed that a large amount of consultation had already taken place but advised that it was not right to consult further at this stage in the process in order not to jeopardise the procurement process.

The Community Stadium Manager also  responded to concerns raised about the procurement process and the business case set out in the bid document.  In addition, he emphasised that options for a sustainable future for Yearsley Pool would be considered and that the proposals combined a range of commercial and community uses, as well as retail.

Some Members acknowledged the information provided by both the Cabinet Member and officers in response to the reasons for call in. They expressed their support for the project and reminded the committee of the risks of delaying the project as outlined by the Cabinet Leader and Cabinet Member.

Other members confirmed that while they still had concerns over the proposals, they continued to support the stadium and the majority of what was contained in the proposals. They asked that the council gave a commitment to keeping Yearsley Pool open in the long term and to undertaking further consultation with residents regarding the proposals for the stadium project.

Members were then asked to decide whether to confirm the decision made by Cabinet (Option A) or to refer it back to the Cabinet for re-consideration (Option B).

After a full debate, it was:

Resolved:  That Option A be approved and that the decision of Cabinet be confirmed.

Reason:     In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s constitution.