Agenda item

Purpose: To approve the terms of reference for the Sports Hub Task and Finish Group.

Members considered the draft Sports Hub Task and Finish Group Terms of Reference (Agenda Item 8) as drafted by the Scrutiny Commission Chairman.

Key points from the debate were as follows:

·       Additional witnesses were proposed, including Mr Alan Pearce, the Football Federation, the Football Association, Newbury Town Council, and Paul Martindill.

·       It was proposed to consider whether consistent advice (including external advice) had been given to officers and subsequently to Members.

·       It was felt that the review could be concluded in four meetings, but concern was expressed that it may take longer if the Task Group considered all aspects in detail.

·       Some Members felt that the review might become political and they suggested that it should not rake over previous decisions. The new administration had simply decided on a different course of action.

·       A suggestion was made to narrow the scope to consider: whether the project had been well-managed; whether reliable and consistent advice had been provided; and what lessons could be learned from the project. 

·       If the scope was narrowed, it was suggested that the list of witnesses could be reduced. It was felt unlikely that Sport England would attend and that there would be existing documentation that could be referred to instead. Also, it was suggested that the political witnesses would not be able to add much to the proceedings.

·       A reduced scope was felt to be a good compromise in terms of available resources and outcomes.

·       Others felt that Sport England were fundamental to the conversations that had taken place, so it would be necessary to have them as a witness and to review the evolution of the project from as far back as possible.

·       Learning lessons to inform future work was considered important.

·       It was suggested that the Task Group should focus on scrutinising the Executive’s decisions rather than fact-finding.

·       The administration should have nothing to fear from the decision making process being reviewed – any lessons could be applied to future decisions.

·       In terms of the outputs of the review, it was suggested that, rather than producing a long report, the Task Group should come up with concise points in a tabular form about what had gone well/badly and lessons that could be applied to a future project.

·       Members felt that it would be difficult to review the project without reference to the revised Playing Pitch Strategy document. Unfortunately, this would not be ready for some time.

·       The consistency of advice was considered to be one of the most important aspects to consider.

·       If the Council had used PRINCE2 for the project, then the documentation could be readily reviewed (e.g., initial idea, business case, gateway reviews and lessons learned report). If everything was in order, then subsequent interviews may be unnecessary.

·       The Chief Executive expressed concerns about staff capacity. The interviews would take time to organise. The organisation was under pressure from Adult Social Care and Children’s Services, which had much higher levels of spend and risk than this project and it was suggested that staff should spend their time on things that could make a difference financially and in terms of the services the Council provided.

·       Members suggested that this work could inform a future review of the Playing Pitch Strategy as well as learning lessons about project management to inform future projects.

·       It was confirmed that the Sports Hub would have been funded from borrowing and so no funds had been reallocated.

·       It was recognised that external witnesses were not obliged to attend, but attendance via Zoom would be offered. Alternatively, they could be send a list of questions.

·       Although this was a project of the previous administration, it was felt that there was still value in looking at it.

Councillor Erik Pattenden proposed to amend the Terms of Reference to focus solely on points three, four and seven and that the list of witnesses be reviewed in order to reduce the amount of effort required to organise and run the task and finish group. This was seconded by Councillor Jeremy Cottam. At the vote, the motion was not carried.

The Chairman proposed to agree the terms of reference as written. The motion was seconded by Councillor Dominic Boeck. At the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED to agree the terms of reference.

It was noted that the Legal Team had advised that the terms of reference should be amended to state that the Task Group would ‘consider’ rather than ‘determine’ each aspect.

The start date for the reviews was likely to be September.

Nominations were invited for membership of the Task Group. Members who had been involved in decisions about the Sports Hub would not be eligible.