Meeting documents

[- These minutes are draft pending confirmation as a correct record at the next meeting -]

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL

BATH RECREATION GROUND TRUST

Wednesday 14th October 2009

PRESENT -:

Councillor Chris Watt, Councillor Vic Pritchard and Councillor David Hawkins - Development and Major Projects

1 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Chair(person) drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda

2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

There were no declarations of interest made.

3 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR(PERSON)

There were no items of urgent business.

4 QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS

Statements were made by the following people (copies have been placed on the Minute book);

Questions had been submitted by the following people and responses were circulated and are available on the Minute book;

5 MINUTES: FRIDAY 24TH MARCH 2009

On a motion from Councillor Hawkins, seconded by Councillor Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Friday 24th March 2009, including the exempt minute of the same meeting, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person).

6 UPDATE ON GENERAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES (Report 7).

Councillor Watt introduced Glen Chipp, Strategic Director Customer Services, who had been appointed as lead support officer to the Trust.

Councillor Watt took this opportunity to explain about the cricket pitch which had now been laid between the touchline and the front of the East Stand. The previous pitch, due to its location in the middle of the area known as the `outfield', had limited the ability for other potential uses; - the new location uses the rugby pitch and a smaller proportion of the area known as the `outfield', leaving up to two thirds of the `outfield' for other sports. He then offered an invitation to any clubs or societies who would benefit from a permanent home there to make an application. A further benefit was the prospect of Somerset County Cricket Club playing a friendly game there in summer 2010 thereby generating income for the Trust. There was also potential for non-professional events for youth and school tournaments during the summer.

With regard to the trees which had been felled, the Chair gave a bit of background. He understood that due to the planning application submitted by Bath Rugby for the temporary stand, this had resulted in the Tree Protection Orders being removed. The Trust were not involved in this application. They have discussed what would now be appropriate for replacing the trees and have asked the Parks department to identify where there would be capacity on the bank outside the stadium to replace the three trees that were lost.

Councillor Watt concluded by saying that, during the summer, they re-negotiated a number of arrangements with the Rugby club regarding car parking and use of other facilities, and the Trust was now in a significantly better position financially than previously.

On a motion from Councillor Pritchard, seconded by Councillor Hawkins, it was

RESOLVED to note the contents of the report.

7 LETTINGS UPDATE & REVIEW OF STRATEGY & CHARGES (Report 8).

Councillor Watt introduced this item and welcomed the increasing activity on the Recreation ground. There remained some conflicts with some of the bookings but they were working to resolve these.

With regard to the revised charging structure, officers must have at their discretion the ability to assess potential wear and tear and any remedial action needed, and be comfortable negotiating an appropriate cost to cover that.

On a motion from Councillor Pritchard, seconded by Councillor Hawkins, it was then

RESOLVED

(1) To note the position with the lettings update;

(2) To adopt the revised charging structure; and

(3) That the implementation of the charging structure is reviewed by the Trust in April 2010 in order to agree any revised charges from that date.

8 BATH RECREATION GROUND - 2008/09 OUTTURN AND BUDGET 2009/10 (Report 9).

In introducing this report, the Chair referred to an error in the final figure of Appendix 3; - the `amount available for drawdown' figure should read £105,911 and not £315,200. With regard to the loan from the Council to cover the costs of the Strategic Review, repairs to the turnstiles and the Receiver & Manager, he explained that the Trustees were making provision for repayment of the debt when it becomes due. It was to be noted that they were reviewing the collection of fees and taking a more rigorous approach. In relation to the management costs of the Trust, there was scope for reducing these by concentrating resources to achieve efficiency and clarity, and the Trust was looking into that.

On a motion from Councillor Pritchard, seconded by Councillor Hawkins, it was

RESOLVED

(1) To note the outturn position for 2008/09;

(2) To note the current spend on the Strategic Review and turnstiles; and

(3) To note the spend to date for 2009/10.

9 UPDATE ON PROGRESS WITH CHARITY COMMISSION (Report 10).

Councillor Watt gave a verbal update on the latest situation, explaining that the Trust had been due to re-submit proposals at the beginning of August but was yet to do so. The reason for this was that detailed discussions were ongoing between the Trust and the Council, and the Trust and the Rugby Club, and they had not yet reached the point where there was sufficient clariy to submit proposals.

The Chair then opened the meeting up for questions which are summarised below;

In response to a question regarding the expected timescale for submitting proposals, the Chair was not able to be precise. It was for the Trust to respond to the letter from the Council once it had considered how it met the best interests of the Trust.

The Trust was asked whether it was likely that a further Section 26 Order would be granted for 2010/11. Councillor Watt's response explained that the Charity Commission moved these on the basis that there was continuing progress towards the ultimate aim. If a further Section 26 order was not granted, the Rugby Club would revert to their original footprint which would involve a smaller East Stand.

In response to a question which described the Trust's intention as extending the provision for commercial/professional sport, Councillor Watt explained that this was not the case as their aim was to move and concentrate these activities to enhance the provision of facilities for clubs, assocations and societies for a wider range of beneficiaries.

A question regarding Firs field noted that no formal proposal had been submitted but queried whether any informal proposal or approach had been made. The Chair replied that the last proposal to the Charity Commission had been over a year ago but had not included details of a land swap at that time. He had discussed on an informal basis with the Charity Commission the extent to which additional land would outweigh the detriments. The Commission was aware that Firs field was a potential `candidate' for that benefit.

A question was put about the 2008/09 outturn figures and whether the income from the Rugby club covered the costs (eg; for ground maintenance). The Chair ran through the list of users and income received; broadly speaking, the Rugby Club generates a surplus but there is no income for the Leisure Centre from the Council and there are some costs associated with it.

Following on from this, a question was put as to whether the Trust intended to continue to subsidise the croquet and tennis activities. Councillor Watt noted the incongruity of subsidising what amounted to private members' clubs and explained that discussions had taken place with all users that, in future, provision of a subsidy would only be justifiable if two provisions were met;

1. that the sport would be available to the wider public in some way; and

2. that the club/association could demonstrate that they were making a contribution to the charitable purposes of the Trust eg staging an annual event opening the sport up to a wider audience.

If these conditions could not be met, then the Trust would have the ability to recover the cost of maintaining the facility.

The Trust were asked whether the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for the Recreation Ground had been decided ¹ , and whether there was a reason why the gates were not seeming to be locked. The Chair wasn't clear whether the TRO was being enacted yet but it was their clear intention that parking which was not for legitimate purposes would be stopped. The parking would also be reviewed as there had been concerns that the manner in which people were parking was affecting the access/egress. He undertook to follow up the issue of the gates being locked and requested the Parks & Green Spaces Manager to follow this up and issue appropriate sanctions to the Rugby Club if necessary.

Following this discussion, there was a request to have the gates opened earlier in the morning and a suggestion that they be opened at a fixed time for summer and winter so that users were clearer exactly when they could get access. This was generally accepted as being a positive suggestion and the Chair asked the Strategic Director Customer Services to look into this with a view to having the gates unlocked earlier (whilst acknowledging that the person opening the gates has a series of visits to make and is subject to the vagaries of traffic). A further request was made to investigate the rubbish collection from the Rugby club as it was apparently done daily at around 6am, very noisy and undertaken via a private road.

The Chair then concluded the meeting at 2.25pm

Chair(person)

Date Confirmed and Signed

\\Cyclops\shared$\Democratic Services\WordDocs\Bath Rec Trust\Min\091014.doc

Prepared by Democratic Services

1 Note of clarification - The Traffic Regulation Order for the Recreation Ground was decided by Cabinet Member Charles Gerrish on 23 September 2009 and free to implement from 3rd October 2009