Agenda item

The attached papers were specified as “to follow” on the Agenda previously distributed relating to the above mentioned meeting.

The Assistant Director of Planning and Leisure Services presented the Bromsgrove Play Audit and Investment Strategy report to the Board as detailed below:

• The report set out a factual analysis of the play equipment within the District, detailing Council owned sites, location and who managed the specific areas.
• The Play Audit and Investment Strategy sought to address deficiencies in play provision across the District, allowing all households, where reasonably practicable, to have access to good quality play spaces within walking times of up to 10 to 15 minutes.

• Responding to the recommendations in the Leisure and Culture Strategy for Bromsgrove, a detailed Play Audit and Investment Strategy had been completed with costings also included.

• There were currently 85 play areas across the District. A total of 40 were owned and managed by Bromsgrove District Council, the other 45 were owned and managed by other Organisations including Parish Councils, Community Associations and private Management Companies. The Bromsgrove Play Audit which considered the accessibility of play provision, considered the contribution of all 85 play spaces. The Bromsgrove Play Investment Strategy was focused on the 40 play spaces for which Bromsgrove District Council had responsibility.

• The formation of the Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG) provided some useful discussions including the condition of play areas, approaching “end of life”.  As instructed by CAG, Officers carried out a public consultation, with a useful session being held with the Consultant to discuss Foxgrove Way in more detail.

• The Assistant Director of Planning and Leisure Services concluded the presentation, adding that the analysis had been useful to define the location, condition and the work that was required for the play equipment.  It was also fundamental that decisions regarding funding should be done in a controlled and managed way.  S106 contributions would also be a factor when allocating the appropriate funding.

During consideration of the item, Members discussed a number of points:

·         Members expressed the view that it was disappointing the Consultant was not present for the meeting. – It was advised that the consultancy was relatively small and specialised but that the matter would be addressed. 

·         It was also queried why consultancy was necessary for the project. – It was explained that there had been an opportunity for funding through salary savings.  Various recommendations from Cabinet had been set in terms of the leisure strategy and required completion within short timescales.

·         Members discussed that the CAG sessions had been productive and demonstrated that the forums were beneficial.

·         It was queried how the assessments had been carried out, in particular, with regard to the number of households in the District, having accessibility to play areas within a walking time of up to 10 to 15 minutes.  Members also expressed the view that the quality of the equipment should have been more of a consideration over the distance it took to access the area. -  Members were advised that accessibility has been cross referenced with demographic health data including Inherited Metabolic Diseases (IMD), Health Deprivation and Disability with the population aged 12 and under including child obesity.

·         The Board also queried if the necessary British and European Standards had been considered in significant detail, in particular, concerning the critical fall height. – It was advised that The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) guidance determined the adequate fall height.  Officers agreed to obtain an official guidance and report back to Members as an action.

·         The Members expressed the need to review areas with no play area provision also as part of the assessment.

·         The Board discussed areas being reviewed at a late stage in the process and expressed the view, could run the risk of losing its provision, particularly, if the play area were deemed to be unsafe. – The Board was advised that some areas were being reviewed later as they were not considered an urgent issue and would be the subject of a public consultation.

·         Members queried if the review standards were considered nationally acceptable? – Members were informed that there were national standards for what was considered acceptable and unacceptable. 

·         The Board queried The Play Audit and Investment Strategy which set out an approach that would improve the accessibility of play provision so that 82.5% of households (baseline 81.7%) in the District had access to a play space within a walking time of up to 10 to 15 minutes.  Members expressed their view that the statistics within the report were not considered adequate. – It was noted that the review considered walking distance, quality and also in areas where improvements were required.  Some areas were also being converted from local to neighbourhood play areas.

·         The capital funding bids timeframe was also considered, suggesting that Officers provided Ward Councillors with the necessary paperwork to assist with the process. – Members were advised that finances had been set aside but if the specified period lapsed, Officers would be required to discuss funding with the Board through the budget setting process to request the necessary monies.  Members were also advised that there was a specific form which required completion for requests of capital spending.

·         Typographical errors were discussed for the All Play Provision by Ward document.  Officers sought to amend the necessary information.

·         Members discussed play areas not being considered for upgrading for 1-3 years.  It was queried if a business case could be considered to look at profiling and sequencing some areas? – The Chief Executive informed the Board that the finance and funding for the review (Tranche 1) had already been considered.  Tranche 2 was for consideration in the new year and that further proposals could be reviewed at that point.

·         The Board also discussed the population forecasts which were shown as out of date.  With the new local plan which would be a necessary consideration, would the Council be Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) compliant? – Members were advised that Funds were collected from the Developer to pay for work on development sites and that legislation governed that process.

·         Members also queried if it could be a consideration for Parish Councils to get access to funding to provide a fairer and more equitable process. – It was advised that Parish Councils could apply for the necessary funding, although they had not had a comprehensive presentation but communications were in progress.

·         It was also queried how the consultancy fees had been calculated? – The Board was advised that an agreement with the Consultant to pay on an hourly rate was discussed to better manage the costs, based on extra works and scrutiny.

·         The Board also queried how some areas were being measured which were not being replaced or reviewed for a significant period? – Members were asked to note that some areas were planned for larger play area or neighbourhood play areas.

·         Members also queried if there would be any additional consultancy costs if work has not been carried out correctly? – It was advised that the brief set had been met and had not been carried out incorrectly.  Members expressed the view that some had not been given the opportunity to review the brief and would have been helpful to review prior to the Overview and Scrutiny Boad meeting. - The Leader of the Council informed Members that the brief was discussed and reviewed during CAG meetings with the consultant and it was thought that all Members had been briefed accordingly.

·         The Leader of the Council expressed the view that an audit for Parish Council play area provision should be carried out and for transparency and scrutiny, be reviewed through the Finance and Budget Working Group.

·         Members also queried if, as part of the assessment process, there could be more consideration to the quality of the play areas. – It was advised Officers would be working through improvements as part of the review.

·         It was also discussed by the Board if CAG could consider as part of their process, review combining some areas to save money in the long term.

·         The Chairman queried why some calculations in the report were unspecified ie the use of 10/15 minutes. – It was noted that it was deemed acceptable for residents to walk to a larger play area, for example.

·         Members also requested that the wording for Belbroughton and Romsley Ward documentation in the report be reviewed and amended accordingly.  Officers agreed to review this as an action.

Also during consideration of the item, an amendment to number 2) recommendation was proposed by Councillor R. Hunter.  The recommendation was:

“That the approach to capital investment as presented in, The Bromsgrove Play Audit and Investment Strategy (Appendix 2) is accepted and that officers are requested to prepare bids in consultation with Ward Members for capital funding, as applicable, to be considered in due course and in the context of other funding bids”.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor R. Hunter and seconded by Councillor D. Nicholl.

The Board agreed to endorse the proposed change to the wording of the Bromsgrove Play Audit and Investment Strategy recommendation.

RECOMMENDED that

The Cabinet RESOLVE that:-

1) The approach to improve the accessibility of equipped children’s play as presented in the Bromsgrove Play Assessment (Appendix 1) is adopted.

2) That the approach to capital investment as presented in, The Bromsgrove Play Audit and Investment Strategy (Appendix 2) is accepted and that officers are requested to prepare bids in consultation with Ward Members for capital funding, as applicable, to be considered in due course and in the context of other funding bids.