Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence were received from Councillor M W Rose.

It was noted that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillor C A Vinson had been appointed as substitute member for Councillor M Rose.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 December 2024 (to follow).

The consideration of the Minutes was deferred.

To receive the Cabinet decisions in respect of recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy advised that there were no decisions to report.

To receive any public petitions or issues referred by Council, Cabinet or another Committee.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy advised that there were no issues referred to the Committee by Council, Cabinet or another Committee.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy presented the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decisions to the Committee for its consideration.

Members queried why items 14 and 16 had been withdrawn. The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy advised that she did not know why they had been withdrawn but would find out and report back to the Members outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decisions be noted.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy presented the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme to the Committee for its consideration.

Please note that in accordance with the agreed Protocol for Public Speaking at Overview and Scrutiny, the right to speak only applies to agenda item 10.

Members of the public wishing to speak must register to do so by no later than 2.00 pm on the second working day (Thursday) before the meeting.

The Head of Corporate Services and Democracy advised that two members of the public had been in contact to register to speak on items on the agenda to which the public speaking protocol applied.

Peter Jull had registered to speak in respect of Minute No. 94 (Tides Leisure Centre).

The second registered public speaker was not in attendance at the meeting.

To consider the attached report of the Strategic Director (Place and Environment).

The Strategic Project Manager presented the report on Tides Leisure Centre.

Members were advised that the report addressed the two main issues to be resolved in order to progress the Deal Leisure Centre (DLC) project. These were:

·         The preferred facilities mix of the new DLC. It was stated that the six-lane pool option had been developed to more a detailed feasibility stage (RIBA Stage 2). It provided the same core facility mix as reported in July 2024, however, the proposed pool size had increased from five to six lanes with inflatable fun opportunities. It also had Sport England pool depth, and the proposals now included a toddler splash pad which had helped improve the business plan. The project could potentially be completed by Summer 2027.

·         The future operator of new DLC. Five management options had been considered for the new Deal Leisure Centre. Each option had been evaluated against twelve criteria including financial return, level of risk transfer, alignment with Council’s strategic priorities and set-up costs. Outsourcing to a leisure operator had been identified as the most appropriate option.

It was stated that the Cabinet had agreed to proceed to RIBA Stage 3 and 4 development of the six-lane pool option, funded by up to £1,068,000 already included in the capital programme funding.

Members raised the following points:

·         To welcome the report and the certainty the Cabinet decision brought to the future of the Deal Leisure Centre. The importance of delivering the project as quickly as possible for the people of Deal was emphasised.

·         To thank officers for the work involved in getting the project to this stage given the history of contract inflation and the historical impact of Covid to the project.

·         To question what impact local government reorganisation would have on the project. In response Members were advised that the report had been written prior to Kent County Council deciding to go for priority status. However, it was felt that projects already underway would be allowed to continue.

·         To recognise the stops and starts inherent to a project like the Deal Leisure Centre. Members were reminded that in November 2022 the project had been considered to be unaffordable.

·         To discuss the issues around the construction of new facilities and securing an operator for the new Deal Leisure Centre. Members were advised that the Sports Hall and Tennis Centre could be operated separately during the swimming pool build.

The Committee thanked officers for their hard work and dedication in bringing the Deal Leisure Centre project forward.

To receive the views of clubs and organisations that would be impacted by the proposed temporary closure of all facilities at Tides for nine months from 1 April 2025 if decision CAB74 were to be implemented.

This agenda item has been added by the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor T J Bartlett.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of sports clubs and organisations that used the Tides Leisure Centre facilities to discuss the impact on them of the proposed temporary closure of all facilities.

Ron Condon

·         That he had looked at alternative facilities in Whitfield and Sandwich for his group to use but none were as suitable as the facilities at Deal.

·         He asked that as the Sports Hall and Tennis Centre were separate from the pool, that if there were the will, efforts should be made to keep them open.

·         He acknowledged that while it might be difficult or inconvenient it was important for the health of his retired badminton players to have access to the facilities. 

Peter Tullo

·         Peter Tullo was the Chair of the Walmer Lawn Tennis Association and Croquet Club.

·         He recognised that there were outdoor tennis courts that could be used as an alternative to the facilities at Tides.

·         He advised that tennis was a growing sport and that the indoor facility at Tides was unusual and an asset as it facilitated indoor coaching. The Club had 150 junior players and 4 professional coaches.

Kelly Siadatan

·         Kelly Siadatan was a coach at East Kent ACRO. Members were advised that the club was 40 years old and had been using the facilities at Tides for 20 years.

·         The club had competitions in April 2025 and the three months’ notice given of the closure was insufficient. The club had not been able to find a suitable alternative venue due to their needs to store a lot of equipment. It was a worry that the club could fold without suitable facilities.

·         At every stage in the project the need for a new pool had been discussed but at no point had they been advised that the closure of the sports hall was a consideration. They had discussed potential interim arrangements but were given little notice of the closure with the Council not advising them until the decision the previous week.

·         The parents of the children at East Kent ACRO were relying on her to find a solution.

·         An email from East Kent ACRO was read out by the Head of Corporate Services and Democracy on behalf of the club.

The Chairman invited Councillor C D Zosseder, the Portfolio Holder for Community and Corporate Property to speak. Councillor Zosseder raised the following points:

·         To welcome the opportunity for the public to speak at Overview and Scrutiny Committee on this matter.

·         To explain that the delay in contacting many of the sports clubs and organisations was due to delay in obtaining their details from Your Leisure who operated Tides and held their details rather than Dover District Council.

·         That the affected staff at Tides had to be spoken to before the Council had been able to speak to the sports clubs and organisations. Community Services had been contacting the groups to speak to them once the Council had their contact information from Your Leisure.

·         It would be part of any operator’s contract  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Following the moving of the resolution to exclude the press and public, Councillor C A Vinson asked for clarification of the grounds on which the exclusion was being made.

The Strategic Director (Corporate and Regulatory) advised that the officers who prepared the report considered the access to information rules and that the Strategic Director (Place and Environment) as the Proper Officer for the report in this case had identified that the rules concerning exempt information applied to the report.

The wider public interest was also considered and on balance it was felt that the report contained exempt information. It was felt by officers that the exempt information relating to commercial and business interests in the report outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information as their disclosure could adversely affect the viability of the project.

Members were advised that it was their decision as to how to vote on the motion to exclude the press and public that had been moved but in doing so they should consider the views of officers and the public law impact.

The Head of Corporate Services advised in response to a question that a recorded vote would require six members to agree it.

It was moved by Councillor D R Friend, duly seconded by Councillor C A Vinson, that

A recorded vote be held.

On being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

It was moved by Councillor L M Wright, duly seconded by Councillor J P Loffman and

RESOLVED:   That, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the remainder of the business on the grounds that the items to be considered involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

(Councillor M Bates requested that his vote against the resolution to exclude the press and public be recorded under paragraph 18.5 (Individual Recorded Vote) of the Council Procedure Rules)

(Councillor T J Bartlett requested that his vote against the resolution to exclude the press and public be recorded under paragraph 18.5 (Individual Recorded Vote) of the Council Procedure Rules)

(Councillor D R Friend requested that his vote against the resolution to exclude the press and public be recorded under paragraph 18.5 (Individual Recorded Vote) of the Council Procedure Rules)

(Councillor C A Vinson requested that his vote against the resolution to exclude the press and public be recorded under paragraph 18.5 (Individual Recorded Vote) of the Council Procedure Rules)

To consider the attached report of the Strategic Director (Place and Environment).

In accordance with paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, Councillors N S Kenton, O C de R Richardson, and C A Vinson have requested that Cabinet decision CAB74 be called-in. The reason given for the call-in is as follows:

“The reason for the call-in is that we do not feel that the Cabinet adequately considered the impact of the temporary closure on users of the indoor tennis centre and sports hall, given the many clubs and organisations that use the facilities. We do not believe these groups have been given sufficient notice to allow them to find alternative facilities. We do not believe these factors were given adequate weight or consideration when making the financial decision to close the whole Tides facility until January 2026.”

The decision taken by the Cabinet at its meeting on 13 January 2025 was as followed:

CAB74 It was agreed:

(a)   That the review of options to continue interim operations at Tides Leisure Centre be noted.

(b)   That the temporary closure of all facilities for nine months from 1 April 2025, until a new operator is appointed following a competitive tender process, be approved.

The Strategic Project Manager presented the report on Tides Leisure Centre - Review of Interim Operating Arrangements and updated Members on developments since the report was considered by the Cabinet on 13 January 2025.

RESOLVED:   That Cabinet be requested to review all options, including any that may have emerged since the original Cabinet decision, to continue interim operations at Tides Leisure Centre and to be mindful of the financial impact of any decision on the Council’s budget.