Leisure Resources Strategy Consultation report 25
Version 1.
CONTENTS
Leisure Resources Strategy Consultation report 25
Version 1.
Introduction
The Cornwall Council Leisure Resources Strategy options document was approved by the Partnerships PAC, Partnerships Portfolio Holder and Leisure Resources Strategy Advisory Group. Pre-consultation with partners (e.g., town/parish councils, schools etc) provided an opportunity for initial comment prior to summer holidays and targeted consultation that also included voluntary sector organisations, leisure partners, research consultees, sports clubs and National Governing Bodies of sport (NGBs) during the period including August and up to 19 September 2014.
The Options Document presented two options relating to the difficult decisions about council leisure resources that it needs to make. It sought to set a strategic framework within which these (and future) decisions will be made whilst meeting the Council’s aspirations of increasing participation in leisure activity and contributing to health and wellbeing and the economy in Cornwall. A Consultation Questionnaire was sent with the Options Document to consultees.
This is a report of responses received.
Leisure Resources Strategy Consultation report 25
Version 1.
Pre-consultation
Pre-consultation questionnaire were sent to parish/town councils, primary, secondary, special and private schools and voluntary sector sports clubs. It provided an opportunity for initial comment (from schools, parish/town councils and sports clubs), about impending Cornwall Council leisure decisions, prior to the summer holidays. See Appendix 1 for the pre-consultation questionnaire.
Responses
There were 172 responses from a variety of individuals (40%) and organisations (60%), which are summarised as:
· Responses came from across Cornwall (i.e., East Cornwall = 23%, Mid Cornwall = 43%, West Cornwall = 34%).
· Six options were suggested and two were clearly identified by responders as preferred options: “Continue to provide the current level of (Cornwall Council leisure) facilities” (46%) and “Transfer (leisure facility) provision out of Council control on the basis of procuring a long term contract with new owners/leaseholders which guarantees a certain level of provision” (34%).
· The majority of responders (64%) agreed that the appropriate options were identified in terms of how the Council uses its ‘leisure resources’. Recurrent themes included:
o A one size fits all approach is not necessarily the way forward. There may well be other options.
o The way forward should be based on a combination of options.
o Private sector control involvement potentially brings a threat of greater interest in profit rather than serving the community.
o Mitigate the impact of Council actions on users.
o Upgrade and improve facilities.
o Increase the number of facilities.
o Reduction in the number of leisure centres is inconsistent what the Council wants to achieve because it is contrary to encouraging and promoting participation in leisure activities.
o Leisure facilities don’t have to be major buildings.
o Work with sports clubs and other community organisations to increase income and/or reduce expenditure.
· In terms of the question about what an organisations could do to respond positively to Cornwall Council’s situation, recurrent themes included:
o Help to generate more revenue.
o Provide alternative leisure facilities (and activities) if a leisure centre closes.
o Help to promote leisure opportunities.
o Operate a leisure centre in partnership with the Council/work more closely with the Council.
o Proffer advice.
o Find alternative ways of sustaining leisure provision.
o Participate in discussions/negotiations about future Council leisure provision.
o Operate leisure facilities.
Responses indicate that understanding of the Council’s position in relation to its leisure provision is limited. This would suggest that a comprehensive awareness raising and ‘educational’ campaign would be beneficial.
Information from the pre-consultation survey subsequently informed the targeted consultation (see responses below).
Targeted consultation responses
Targeted consultation was based on a questionnaire survey. It was sent to parish/town councils, schools (primary, secondary, special and private), voluntary sector organisations, leisure partners, strategy research consultees, sports clubs and National Governing Bodies of sport (NGBs). Cornwall Councils’ ‘leisure’ web page was also updated. It happened during the period between 1 August and 19 September 2014. See Appendix 2 for the consultation questionnaire that was distributed with the Options Document.
Responses
There were 215 questionnaire survey responses from a variety of individuals and organisations, although not every response replied to every question. The responses are summarised below:
SurveyMonkey analysis
Part 1 – About you
All responses are from organisations, with the biggest proportion (41.3%) from people representing sports clubs. Further analysis indicates a good geographic spread across Cornwall, with more responses from organisations in Mid Cornwall and slightly fewer from West Cornwall (see figure below). The proportion of responses in relation to distribution of the options document and its questionnaire is unknown (i.e., it has not been possible to keep track of who has received and reviewed the options document), so it is assumed, for the purposes of this report, that partners and stakeholders have considered the implications of the Council’s options for its leisure resources and that the responses are, therefore, suitably representative. However, ‘pay and play’/casual leisure centre users are excluded. They are significant leisure centre users. Consequently, promotion of the Council’s Leisure Resources Strategy in its leisure centres would help to inform this group.
Figure: Where is the organisation that you are representing located?
Part 2 – About the document
Considerable investment has been made by the Council to insure that the document is clear and concise. It is, therefore, pleasing to note that nearly three quarters (72.2%) of responses indicate that the document was clear and easy to understand. However, less than a sixth (13.3%) didn’t. Some of the responders appear to have either misread the document or to have assumed (or expected) that it was something different. Although a sixth is a significant proportion it does not necessarily negate the validity of responses received. Because the proportion of responses received that either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the view that the document was clear and easy to understand, it is not considered a significant issue and the approach adopted will be maintained.
The situation with regards to the vision (i.e., “To increase participation in leisure activity and contribute to improvement in health and the economy in Cornwall”) is less clear. Whilst approximately 32% of responses indicate that it is right for the Council, a similar proportion indicated that it isn’t. In addition, over a third were ‘neutral’. The principal concern of responders is that a Council decision resulting in leisure centre closure would be inconsistent with the vision. However, the majority (43.8%) of responses indicate that proposed criteria will help the Council to make consistent decisions. In addition, over half (54.8%) of responders ‘skipped’ this question, so it is difficult to determine the probity of the proposed vision. However, it is proposed to amend it.
Nearly two thirds f (i.e., 64.2%) of responders indicate that what the Council does in relation to leisure activity is identified in the document. However, various omissions are identified, including:
· Discretionary Rate Relief
· Outdoor bowls
· Play
· Public Rights Of Way
· Countryside access
· Links to housing, transport or community activity
The Leisure Resources Strategy will include reference to Cornwall Council’s work in these areas.
Responses indicate a general acceptance that the Council’s finances need to reduce but that approaches to how this is achieved have not been adequately considered. This is a misconception, as illustrated by the pre-consultation questionnaire and the options document (page 10), which explains why Options 1 and 2 are the focus. However, reference to the council’s emerging strategy and corresponding budget in the Leisure Resources Strategy would be beneficial.
Although the majority (38.9%) of responses indicate that Options 1 and 2 are transparently and robustly evaluated there is concern that the document doesn’t include sufficient explanation or any figures and that it doesn’t include what the Council plans to do to mitigate the negative impact of either option. How the Council intends to address these issues should be included in the Leisure Resources Strategy.
Responses also indicate disquiet that potential future impact of closing the council’s leisure centres is not considered in preference to it’s short term objectives. Now that the council’s emerging strategy and corresponding budget have been published, the Leisure Resources Strategy would benefit from inclusion of greater detail and analysis, explanation of why (and how) decisions have been made and any mitigating actions.
Survey responses indicate that Option 2 best fits their organisations’ aspirations (see figure below); about a half of responders skipped this question. Consequently, the Leisure Resources Strategy will focus on this Option and identify how it will be achieved.
Figure: Which option best fits your organisation's aspirations?
Part 3 - Action
More than twice as many responders agree that the things that Cornwall Council will do are identified. However, a third (33.3%) of responses indicate that the list only partially identifies what the Council should do. Suggested omissions can be divided into the following groupings:
· Finance
· Implementation of the actions
· Economic development (including tourism)
· Increase public awareness
· Effective partnership working
· Elite/performance sport
· Impact
Improved transparency (in particular, relating to financial performance) would help to allay some of the fears expressed. This could best be achieved by publishing (and distributing to partners, stakeholders and research consultees) the adopted Leisure Resources Strategy.
Part 4 – Impact
Several responses indicated that there were no positive impacts on an organisation of choosing/implementing Option 1. However, potential positive impacts included:
· Retention of Council responsibility (i.e., the leisure centres wouldn’t be privatised).
· Continued ability (of the Council) to have a strategic influence.
· Increased demand for private sector leisure based business and private clubs.
· Accelerated search for /development of alternative markets.
Similarly, if Option 2 was chosen/implemented suggested potential positive impacts included:
· Improved leisure centre performance.
· Increased likelihood that current leisure centre provision would be retained.
· An increase in provision.
· Easier communication/liaison (because there would be one organisation with responsibility, rather than two).
· Increased recognition of the activities provided by voluntary sector organisations.
· An external view of improvements needed.
· Increased flexibility.
· Greater autonomy.
· Improved alignment between the facilities and community need which could result in increased usage by beneficiaries.
From a more negative perspective, the following identified potential negative impacts are summarised as:
Option 1(potential negative impacts) / Option 2
(potential negative impacts) /
· Leisure Centre closure would mean longer travel times, which conflicts with Objective 2 in Connecting Cornwall:2030. / · Leisure Centre closure would mean that there would be further to travel
· Reduced accessibility to leisure services conflicts with Objective 15 of Connecting Cornwall:2030 / · Possible leisure centre closure.
· Leisure Centre closure would mean that there would be fewer sports venues. / · Lack of direction and investment.
· Leisure Centre closure would mean that there was less advertising for newcomers. / · Leisure Centre closure would mean that there would be fewer places in which to advertise for newcomers.
· There would be fewer places for sports clubs to use. / · Sports clubs would be displaced and go elsewhere.
· Costs to undertake some activities would increase. / · Prices might increase and become unaffordable.
· There would be fewer young people with the ability to swim. / · Pitches likely to be fewer and even less well-maintained.
· Sport and recreation businesses would find it more difficult to trade because there would be fewer local people with the requisite skills. / · It would be more difficult to attract and/or retain external funding.
· There would be a reduction in leisure provision. / · Fewer local jobs.
· There would be fewer local jobs. / · Less help and support.
· More medical intervention would be needed. / · Increased financial and risk liability.
· There would be fewer leisure services. / · Reduced leisure activity in Cornwall.
· Cornwall would fall further behind other counties who already produce, on the whole, a far superior level of athlete due to better and more extensive leisure facilities. / · Cornwall would fall further behind other counties who already produce, on the whole, a far superior level of athlete due to better and more extensive leisure facilities.
· Costs of health promotion/illness prevention would increase. / · Increased financial and risk liability.
· Smaller facilities are likely to close.
· There would be a further deterioration in leisure services.
· There would be fewer resources to hire.
· The national and international competiveness of talented players would be reduced.
· Activity levels would be reduced.
· There would be staff redundancies.
In essence, some of the negative impacts identified for Option 1 are also relevant for Option 2, as illustrated in the table above; some of the potential negative impacts are paired.
Part 5 – Finally
In terms of whether there are any specific issues (relating to leisure provision in Cornwall) that aren’t included in the option document (and/or should be considered), consultees identify the following:
· There’s nothing about transport.
· There’s too much about buildings and not enough about community clubs and resources and people who can inspire and involve others in activity.
· A reduction in leisure services should carefully consider location of remaining services in relation to population and public transport access to ensure that not only car users can access the remaining services.
· The Council’s mitigation if there is a reduction in leisure centres.
· More detail and greater transparency.
· How opportunities for leisure activity could be available to as many communities as possible.
· It would be beneficial to review other areas that have experienced a cut in leisure provision to benchmark against.
· Potential ongoing negative political implications.
· County wide operational issues (e.g., acceptance of qualifications).
· A new swimming pool in Torpoint.