Agenda and draft minutes

The attendees were welcomed to the meeting.

Councillor Gollop was elected as Chair.

To note any declarations of interest from the Councillors.  They are asked to indicate the relevant agenda item, the nature of the interest and in particular whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Please note that the Register of Interests is available at https://www.bristol.gov.uk/councillors/members-interests-gifts-and-hospitality-register

Any declarations of interest made at the meeting which is not on the register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.

There were no declarations of interest.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Any member of the public or Councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Public Forum items should be emailed to scrutiny@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5 pm on Wednesday, 20 June 2018.

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on Monday 25 June 2018.

1. Sam Thompson – Ardagh Community Trust

The questioner was in attendance and presented her statement. The sub-committee noted that the questioner had expressed concern that information contained in the responses to her questions differed significantly from her recollection of the matters raised.

Statements:

1. Cllr Tom Brook
2. Cllr Claire Hiscott
3. The Parks Forum
4. Ardagh Community Trust
5. Cllr Eleanor Combley
6. Cllr Clive Stevens

Those in attendance presented their statements.

To review the decision (taken at 5 June 2018 Cabinet) as a result of the matter having been called in by the Proper Officer on behalf of the Council.

In accordance with the prescribed procedure, the sub-committee reviewed the Call-in of the decision as follows:

 (i)                Explanation of procedure:

The Chair explained the procedure to be followed at the meeting.  The purpose of this meeting was to specifically review and assess the reasons why this decision had been called-in, and then to determine one of the three options available to the sub-committee, as follows:

1. to take no further action; or
2. to refer the matter back to the Cabinet, identifying specific issues for the Cabinet to consider before a final decision was taken.
3. to refer the matter to the Full Council for a wider debate, on the basis that Full Council could decide to take no further action or to refer specific issues/recommendations for the Cabinet to consider before a final decision was taken.

The Chair advised the parties that the majority of Panel Members, having reviewed the submissions, considered that the key issues in this case were to ascertain i) whether consultation had been required in making the decision and ii) if so whether the consultation that had taken place had been sufficient.

(ii)               Presentation of the case by Councillors who called-in the decision:

With reference to the Call-in form included with the agenda papers, Councillors who had called-in the decision presented their case and highlighted their key points as follows:

Cllr Fodor:

1. In the Councillor’s view, silo thinking had been evident in this decision and it had raised the concern that a focus on the sports element of the investment alone, may derail the ongoing Community Asset Transfer negotiations, and in addition, did not appear to be congruent with the Mayor’s Empowering Communities Strategy.
2. A misunderstanding over ward boundaries and relevant neighbourhood partnerships had resulted in key stakeholders in relevant communities not having adequate opportunity to raise their issues and this had exacerbated tensions.
3. The Councillor expressed the view that a commitment to genuine consultation and partnership, working with the key stakeholders involved, had not been demonstrated.

Cllr Combley:

1. In the Councillor’s view there had been a lack of legitimate consultation with an active stakeholder which had been engaged in advanced negotiations with the Council for several years on the community asset transfer of the whole site.  Ardagh Community Trust currently leased the site for a range of community activities and was intrinsically involved in the working of the site.
2. The decision to withhold a number of tennis courts from the community asset transfer had not been consulted upon.
3. As a ward councillor, the Member had not experienced the spirit of collaboration expected, once the Lawn Tennis Associations proposals had been put forward.
4. There had been a lack of clarity over the financial imperative for the Council continuing to be responsible for maintenance of the tennis courts when there was an offer on the table for Ardagh Community Trust to absorb this cost.

Cllr Stevens:

1. The Councillor referred to Lord Woolf’s four legal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.