Agenda and draft minutes

To note any apologies for absence and substitutions.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mohamed, Tighe and Hamidi.

Councillor Kelly substituted for Councillor Mohamed, Councillor Kingston substituted for Councillor Tighe, and Councillor Summers substituted for Councillor Hamidi.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That all items be taken in public as proposed.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2023.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2023 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings.

Councillors Gallant and Hersch presented the reasons for call-in, which focused on resolution (VII) to agree in principle the closure of Perivale Park Golf Couse in financial year 2023/24

·       It appeared that cabinet had used inaccurate data in coming to its decision. According to the data presented in the report, there were 10 unique users of the golf course per day on average. Members of the Perivale Park Club disagreed with this figure and believed it to be too low. Some of the data appeared to have been collected shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic, which would explain lower figures than what is usually the case.

·       Cabinet had agreed in principle to close the golf course partly based on the environmental and public health benefits of the creation of a regional park. Due consideration had not been given to the environmental and public health benefits of the continued running of this golf course, particularly given golf was an active sport, courses were green spaces and they had wild areas. The course itself also had a wide appeal as a comparatively cheap course and attracted people of different backgrounds and ages.

·       The other municipal golf course in Ealing, Brent Valley Golf Couse, was not as flat as the Perivale Park course, which meant that it was less accessible for users who were older or who had disabilities. Brent Valley Golf Course was not a viable alternative for users of the Perivale Park Golf Course.

·       The golf course was important to the local community. Dog walkers were able to walk around parts of the golf course and there was a café on the site.

·       The decision had been announced at short notice. It was unclear why cabinet had agreed in principle to close the golf course prior to the consultation on the regional park.

Leslie Glancy, Club Captain of Perivale Golf Course, spoke on this item. Her speech included the following points:

·       In the view of the golf club, there had been misrepresentations in the statement of case issued by the Council.

·       The golf course was a green leisure facility which was affordable and used by a large and diverse population.

·       The alternative courses noted by the Council were not acceptable. Many members of the Perivale Golf Club would not be able to afford the fees of private courses, and Brent Valley was a boggy course.

Henry Rzepa, representing Friends of Perivale Park, also spoke on this item. His speech included the following points:

·       The Friends of Perivale Park supported the regional park proposals.

·       It was important that the council gave assurances around the continued access and uses of Perivale Park, including its amenities like the café.

Councillor Costigan, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Climate Action, and Councillor Knewstub, Cabinet Member for Thriving Communities, responded to the call in. It was responded that:

·       The proposals for a regional park were a radical step towards meetings the Council’s climate action commitments and its efforts to tackle health inequalities.

·       The decision to agree in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Councillor Gallant presented the reasons for call-in:

·       The proposal for a lido in Ealing did not appear financially viable given that there would be few users of an outdoor pool in the winter months.

·       It appeared that the proposals were not serious, with the long list setting out potential sites which seemed to have little prospect of being chosen.

·       Given the proposals did not appear to be serious, it was considered that the funding allocated to feasibility studies was excessive. 

·       It was likely that the lido was going to be built on an open space in the borough, with the potential effect of reducing green space and biodiversity.

·       There was no mention of parking in the cabinet report.

·       There was a concern that the proposals were distracting from issues relating to the replacement of Gurnell Leisure Centre.

Councillor Knewstub responded to the call-in as follows:

·       Given this was the initial stage of the project, cabinet’s decision was to allocate funds for a feasibility study, the purpose of which was to decide on the financial viability of the project.

·       It was too early to know details of the project, like the provision of parking, its impact on biodiversity and the technical options for heating the lido using data centres.

·       Outdoor lidos in other parts of London showed that people used them all year round.

·       There was a need for a new swimming pool in Ealing. West London was under-provisioned in swimming pools, and there were significant public benefits to swimming, particularly outdoor swimming.

·       The replacement of Gurnell Leisure Centre project was progressing and on track to meet its targets. The Council fully intended to replace Gurnell Leisure Centre as well as provide an outdoor swimming facility.

Following the cabinet member’s presentation, the committee asked the following questions:

·       Had consideration been given to the competition the lido might face from other swimming centres in London?

·       Were other publicly run lidos profitable?

·       Why were there so many locations on the list of potential sites published with the cabinet report?

·       What environmental risks would the lido pose?

To the questions raised, Councillor Knewstub provided the following responses:

·       West London was underserved for lidos, which meant there was likely to be sufficient demand for a lido in Ealing to ensure its proper use and profitability.

·       Although a full analysis of the viability of the project was yet to be completed, lidos in other boroughs did appear to be profitable.

·       In general, outdoor lidos were comparatively low maintenance in comparison to indoor leisure centres.

·       The cabinet would decide whether to move forward with the creation of a lido once a detailed viability assessment had been completed.

·       The long list was published to provoke interest and debate around the proposals. The viability study would provide a shortlist of sites that were considered viable.

After the presentations and questions, Councillor Knewstub left the room. The committee debated the merits of the call-in. In view of the fact that the decision of cabinet was to commence the early stages  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Chairs of the 2022 – 23 scrutiny panels 2, 3 and 4 each presented their final panel reports, highlighting the key areas the panels explored and their final recommendations. Councillor Ball presented scrutiny panel 2’s report on the recovery from the pandemic, Councillor Rice presented scrutiny panel 3’s reporton the topic “regrow, rewild and recycle”, and Councillor Summers presented scrutiny panel 4’s report on genuinely affordable homes.

There were no questions on the reports. On consideration of the reports, the committee

RESOLVED:

That the final reports were agreed.

The Chair introduced the item and referred the committee to its work programme for the coming meetings. The next meeting was going to be focused on budget scrutiny.

Sam Bailey, Head of Democratic Services, explained that the next meeting was going to be a private meeting for the committee to receive training on how best to scrutinise annual budgets. The ambition was for scrutiny to play a more active role in budget review, and for it to have sight of the budget from earlier in the municipal year than it had done in previous years.

The committee welcomed the proposals and made comments. It was noted that in other local authorities budget scrutiny was a year-round topic. It was hoped that the direction of travel for scrutiny was for it consider the budget more often.

The committee considered the work programme and it was

RESOLVED:

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme set out at appendix 1 of the report was agreed.