Agenda item

To consider the above decision called-in by Councillors Evans, Smallwood and B Watson in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution.  A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for call-in, the remit and powers of Scrutiny Management Committee in relation to the call-in procedure, together with the original report and decision of the Executive.

Members considered the decision on York West Swimming Facilities from the meeting of the Executive on 19 December 2006. This had been called-in by Councillors Evans, Smallwood and B Watson in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution. A cover report was attached setting out the reasons for the call-in, the remit and powers of SMC in relation to the call-in procedure, together with the original report and the decision of the Executive.

The Executive Leader had agreed that, in the light of the results of the public consultation, Option C at the Oaklands site be selected as the preferred location and way forward for modernising swimming and leisure facilities (including an enhanced gym and crèche) on the west of the City, that the proposed agreement with the University of York involving a partnership approach to providing new swimming facilities in the south of the City be supported, and that Officers be requested to pursue as quickly as is practical the plans for refurbishment of the Yearsley pool.

However the calling-in Members sought reconsideration of the decision as detailed below:

(a)   Despite claims, the consultation is not a fair representation of York residents views. The fact that only parts of the west side of   the city were consulted is not representative, as residents from other parts of the city are also going to use this pool;

(b) The replacement pool is smaller and has limited spectator facilities, despite initial proposals for a much better facility;

(c)   The adequacy of a reduced pool width to maintain the current level of swimming lessons without taking time out of public swimming has not been demonstrated, nor has the impact of reduced lessons on swimming for school pupils been ascertained;

(d)   The information on alternative provision for the York Baths Club and spectator swimming in York were not clear enough and are potentially completely inadequate;

(e) The decision on these proposals should not precede confirmation that the University proposal is adequate and deliverable within the timescales stated.

Cllr Smallwood and Cllr B Watson attended the meeting as Call-In Members and raised their concerns regarding the consultation process and stated that this should have been city-wide. They stated that the facilities would not be as good as they are currently, e.g. for spectators, and that the assets of the centre of the city were being transferred to the west of the city.

Members discussed the issue of the size of the proposed pool in terms of it being five or six lanes, and officers clarified that the feasibility study carried out was for a five lane pool and this is seen as being adequate, and is effective and efficient use of the capital available. They clarified that the drawings referred to by Mr Crowe are pictorial only and are not to scale.

The consultation was discussed, and officers responded to the issues raised stating that the consultation was city-wide as responses had been received via the website and the Talkabout panel, as well as the consultation to the five wards in the West of the city.

Members discussed the provision for swimming lessons and officers stated that the provision of a five-lane pool rather than a six-lane pool would not affect the provision of school swimming lessons. The detail of the interim arrangements for York Baths Club would be discussed with them.

Members discussed the proposals for the University and the outcome of the Public Inquiry, and officers clarified that the outcome of the above was not connected in any way to the proposals for the Oaklands site.

Cllr Merrett proposed a motion to approve Option (b) of the report and refer the matter back to the Executive for consideration, for the five-lane and six-lane issue to be looked at, and for a proper city wide consultation on the overall pool strategy to be carried out. This motion was seconded by Cllr Blanchard.

This motion was lost on being put to the vote.

Members requested that their votes be recorded, which were as follows:

For : Cllrs Merrett, Blanchard and D’Agorne

Against : Cllrs Holvey, Kirk, Hyman and Livesley

Cllr Livesley proposed a motion to approve Option (a) of the report, which was seconded by Cllr Hyman.

RESOLVED:             That Option (a) of the report be approved; to confirm the decision of the Executive.

REASON:                  The Scrutiny Management Committee does not believe there is any basis for reconsideration.

Members requested that their votes be recorded, which were as follows:

For : Cllrs Kirk, Hyman, Livesley and Holvey

Against : Cllrs Merrett, Blanchard and D’Agorne