Leisure Options Consultation Analysis APPENDIX B

24/11/2013

26/4/13 – Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
APPENDIX B
Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
Overview
•
636 Completed Surveys
•
342 Invalid Responses
•
8 Letters
•
26 Emails
Communications
•
Multiple Social media posts made via Twitter (1800 followers, over 3000 reach from direct
RTs) and every individual site Facebook (Over 4000 users)
•
Documents shared to staff in Leisure Development and Leisure Facilities through local
Sharepoint sites
•
Standard notices created for display in centres with link and QR code to survey
•
Staff encouraged to approach customers/user groups direct either with handouts or email
•
Newsletter South & Leisure Development Clubs– Sent to 8790 subscribers
•
Newsletter North – Sent to 2880 subscribers
•
Press release to full distribution list
•
Internally promoted through CEntranet (staff intranet), Yammer and Team Talk
•
Website: Front Page “In Focus” section, linked from Leisure & Culture pages, listed as active
consultation
•
Links added to Town & Parish Council SharePoint
•
Letters to heads of joint-use sites
•
Link created through weekly schools bulletin
•
Article in weekly, electronic Cheshire East News (distribution: 2192)
Survey Comments By Option
•
Trust 365
•
SLE 301
•
Local Provider 318
•
Private 368
•
General Comments 367
User Type
•
Casual User 44.8%
•
Everybody Member 46.2%
•
Non-User 2.5%
•
Other 6.5%
Representation
•
Member of the Public 86.2%
•
CEC Staff 10.3%
•
Community Sports Club 8.3%
•
Local Organisation 3.7%
•
Local School 2.7%
•
Town/Parish Council 0.8%
Page 219
26/4/13 – Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
•
Supplier 0.2%
•
CEC Councillor 0.2%
•
Other 4.6%
Service Used
•
Alsager Leisure Centre 7.4%
•
Barony Park Sports Complex 1.5%
•
Congleton Leisure Centre 10.3%
•
Crewe Swimming Pool 5.9%
•
Holmes Chapel Leisure Centre 3.6%
•
Knutsford Leisure Centre 6.7%
•
Macclesfield Leisure Centre 16.2%
•
Middlewich Leisure Centre 1.3%
•
Nantwich Swimming Pool 8.0%
•
Poynton Leisure Centre 5.1%
•
Sandbach Leisure Centre 13.4%
•
Shavington Leisure Centre 9.3%
•
Sir William Stanier Leisure Centre 1.2%
•
Victoria Community Centre 0.3%
•
Wilmslow Leisure Centre 7.9%
•
Leisure Development 1.8%
Page 220
26/4/13 – Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
Overall Response By Category
For Inconclusive* Against
Separate Legal Entity 17.61% 25.58% 56.81%
Charitable Trust 62.47% 11.23% 26.30%
Local Transfer 16.35% 18.87% 64.78%
Private Sector 7.61% 13.04% 79.35%
* Responses where the user suggested that they did not mind which option was adopted, or their
response was not clear but did not have a definite for or against tone.
Method Used
All comments were made in a free text box. In the first pass, a number of categories were created to
fit the main opinion reflected, all comments were then added to one of these categories for further
analysis, the categories were:
Detailed Category Code
Preferred option 1
Need more detail to make decision 2
No change needed/no benefit in this option 3
Definitely against 4
Concerned about the ability of trustees or management 5
Did not see a financial incentive to the Council 6
Could lead to substandard facilities/service 7
Concerned about price rises 8
Concerns about redundancies/staffing 9
Concerned about democratic accountability 10
Needs investment in facilities first 11
Unclear response 12
To form the overview for each option, comments were then grouped as:
Category Options
For 1
Inconclusive 2, 12
Against 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Page 221
26/4/13 – Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
Separate Legal Entity
Response By Category
General comments on this option:
•
Unclear on the definition of an SLE
•
Comments from those who supported the option understood that the Council would have
more control
•
Questions over how management fee would work and how it would deliver better value for
money for the Council
•
What guarantees could be made around pricing, existing terms & conditions, bookings etc.
•
Seen as a beurocratic arrangement putting in extra layers of management and administration
•
Who would people complain to if they had an issue with the service?
•
Would need to be allowed to look forward to the future and not be constrained to doing what
has always been done in the pass
•
Would the Council actually remain at arms length?
•
What committments would be made to joint-use agreeements?
Page 222
26/4/13 – Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
Charitable Trust
Response by Category
General comments on this option:
•
Significant number of comments supporting reinvestment of funds back into facilities/service
•
Questions over how management fee would work and how it would deliver better value for
money for the Council
•
How would this option work alongside joint-use arrangements
•
Contract with the trust would need to be robust
•
Support not having shareholders taking a percentage of income
•
How would staff be affected, would there be a reliance on volunteers?
•
What guarantees could be made around pricing, existing terms & conditions, bookings etc.
•
Recognition of benefits of VAT/NNDR savings with charitable status
•
As long as Council retains ownership of the facilities
•
Service users should be on the board of trustees
•
Queries over capital funding and investment into facilities both before established and
ongoing
•
Would this be a new trust or an existing trust?
•
Would this add additional layers of management and increase the costs?
•
What committments would be made to joint-use agreeements?
Page 223
26/4/13 – Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
Private Sector Transfer
Response by Category
General comments on this option:
•
Very strong opinions against, e.g. “Definitely not!!!!!”
•
Could offer more efficiency by forcing a more business-like approach
•
Converns of price increases or reduction in service quality e.g. opening hours
•
Would local communities have any say in the management?
•
What would happen if the company went into administration?
•
Would not wish to see profits going to shareholders/management
•
Council would not have any control over private operator
•
Quality would need to be raised to compete in the private sector
•
There is already enough private leisure provision in the area
•
Lacks community focus
•
Concerns over impact on staff, redundances/pay cuts/casualise hours
•
Management contract would need to be robust
•
Joint-use arrangement would need to be protected
Page 224
26/4/13 – Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
Other Local Provider
Response by Category
General comments about this option:
•
Local providers would know the local users better
•
Would lose benefits of scale (less cost effective with suppliers etc)
•
Lack of expertise/infrastructure
•
Would costs be added to town/parish precepts, double taxation
•
Would have democratic accountability
•
Would lose ability to use multiple facilities on membership
•
Facilities require investment prior to transfer
•
What guarantees could be made around pricing, existing terms & conditions, bookings etc.
•
What incentive is there for the local provider?
•
Too expensive for smaller providers to run effectively
•
Depends on the provider
•
Concerns raised specifically around Sandbach Joint-Use Agreement
•
May lead to inconsistent quality and service in the wider area “post-code lottery” referred to
•
Bad experience with other local provider transfers
Page 225
26/4/13 – Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
•
What happens to staff that work across multiple sites already?
Additional Responses
A number of bodies and individuals responded outside of the survey, their comments remain
anonymous for the purpose of the report:
Organisation
Type
Communication
Method
Comments
Private
Operator
Email Would be interested in tendering for services in Wilmslow
Individual Email Requires further information around scope of review (parks, libraries
etc.) as well as details of possible management organisations.
Individual Email Concerns raised over existing limited provision in Middlewich
Individual Email Detailed professional experience, feedback on all options
Individual Email Favour trust as long as service level maintained. Issues raised around
current parking arrangements
Individual Email Favour trust
Individual Email Require more information
Individual Email Prefer Council to retain control
Individual Letter Supporting trust
Individual Letter Supporting trust
Individual Email Protect current facilities
Individual Email Protect current service, positive comments around current offer
Individual Email Against private sector options, prefer trust
Individual Letter Against transfer out of Council control
Individual Letter Against transfer to private sector, requires more information on other
options, request public meeting
Individual Letter Against transfer out of Council control
Town Council Email/Letter Concerns over quality of consultation and time to thoroughly assess
options
Parish
Council
Email Concerns over existing facility, further information required
Town Council Email Support trust or SLE in principle, expect further consultation once
general option is selected
Local sport
association
Email Protect existing pool availability, engage with clubs for remainder of
the process
Page 226
26/4/13 – Leisure Options Consultation Analysis
Borough
Councillor
Email Concerns of timings of consultation
Borough
Councillor
Email Leisure discretionary service, costs should be prioritised, leisure to
transfer away from Council with no subsidy.
School Letter Concern over consultation process and lack of school transfer option,
interest shown in managing facility
School Email Limited information available, expect to be involved in further
consultation once general option is selected
School Email Interested in managing facilities
Regular Hirer Email/Letter Areas of concern raised to consider for any future operator
Regular Hirer Email Areas of concern raised to consider for any future operator
Swimming
Club
Email Concern over consultation process, seeking reassurance on
arrangements for club use (pricing/access etc.)
Page 227
Page 228
This page is intentionally left blank