Agenda item

RESOLVED

(1)   That Mr Tony Love, Mr Ken Howlett, Ms Natalie Lawrence, Mr Adrian Inwood, Ms Linda Carter, Councillor Pam Varnsverry and Mr Tony Clarke be granted leave to address Cabinet on Item 7, Sixfields – Development Agreement.

(2)   Ms Beverley Mennell and be granted leave to address Cabinet on Item 9, Market Square Feature and Item 13 Housing HRA Private Finance Initiative.

(3)   Mr Norman Adams and Mr Martin De Rosario be granted leave to address Cabinet on Item 13 Housing HRA Private Finance Initiative.

(4)   Mr M Baker be granted leave to address Cabinet on Item 9 Market Square Water Feature.

(5)   Councillor Joy Capstick be granted leave to address Cabinet on Item 5A, O & S Response to Call-in.

(6)   Councillor Keith Davies be granted leave to address Cabinet on Items 5A, O & S Response to Call-in and Item 13 Housing HRS Private Finance Initiative (PFI).

(7)   Councillor Tony Clarke be granted leave to address Cabinet on Item 10,Value for Money Partner for the Directorate of Environment and Culture.

Item 7

Tony Love confirmed he was the Senior Coach at UK Athletics which was run by enthusiastic volunteers of all ages and all walks of life.  They had represented Great Britain in the Mini Olympics and advised of their Club’s successes over the past year despite the problems with the facilities at Sixfields Stadium.  Over previous years a binding agreement was entered into in order to safe guard the facilities which had not been fulfilled but marginalised.   The facilities had been graded the lowest at grade one.  The local schools were doing their best to promote athletics but the trials had to be held at Corby which was time consuming and unfair especially when many schools were within easy distance of Sixfields Stadium.  All parties should honour the existing agreement so local people could see how good the Athletics Club was.

Ken Howlett addressed Cabinet as former Chairman of the Club who was involved with the licence agreement to protect their interests.  He believed it was an important part of the lease that the facilities were maintained to a decent standard but at present they were sub standard and graded at one out of ten.  Corby had good facilities and he believed that they were unable to progress as a Club until this issue was resolved.  The Athletics Club won nearly every competition they enter and currently had approximately 250 children as members.  As the licence had not been honoured, confidence was very low and considered this as a turning point which needed to be handled properly.  The Club would not accept anything but the best.  In response to Councillor Church’s question he confirmed that the maintenance had been carried out by the Council at a cost of £100,000 per year and then it was transferred over to Northampton Football Club.  The licence was drawn to ensure they had training days, cost of renting and lights were in reasonable terms and an inspection of the track and facilities were carried out every year to get competition licence renewed.  This had not been carried out.  £100,000 needed to be spent to bring the facilities up to competition standard to involve the public and be proud of the Athletics Club.  In response to further questioning Mr Howlett confirmed the Club had 700 members overall and last held a competition event approximately seven years ago.  To bring it up to competition standard then the grade would need to be between seven and nine.  The reasons that Northampton Football Club had not maintained the facilities were they had believed they had not received the licence from the Council  which had been signed in March 2004. The Football Club and Athletic Club were aware of the content.

Natalie Lawrence addressed Cabinet as the Club Coach Committee Member and Welfare Officer.  She confirmed that 25,000 young people between 15 and 19 years used the facilities at the Club and she was responsible for organising festivals and athletics.  Last year they held 27 indoor festivals for primary schools and 15 outdoor festivals as well as running an after school program.  People had to go outside of the town to take part in district qualifying to compete at higher competitions and this was an expense and inconvenience.  They had a number of gifted and talented people but were restricted on facilities at the Club.  The Government want to provide for young people but considered that they were being failed.  Another Government offer was to provide five hours of physical activity, two hours in school and three hours outside school in extra-curricular activities but they needed adequate facilities to attract people and maintain them.  This also provided an impact on academic achievement and the Athletics Network.  If they received funding the project could provide for young people the facilities they required and also share practice and expertise.  It would provide recognition for town and offer higher level competitions.

Adrian Inwood confirmed he was a parent and had three children between the ages of 12 to 17 who attended the Athletics Club.  He had spent most of his time travelling up and down the country and he considered that compared to other Councils and Boroughs the facilities at Sixfields were sub standard.  He believed the town were not aware of the achievements in athletics and would be losing the talent to other counties as some people were unable to travel to Corby to compete.  Children should be encouraged to achieve and could go further with the backing of the town.  In response to Councillor PD Varnsverry’s question other Boroughs had the best equipment, support from their local council’s and also looked after their facilities.  90% of the Country’s tracks were in better condition than Northampton.  They had the best coaching but now needed the facilities as well.  In response to further questioning Mr Inwood confirmed that all members were competing at a minimum of county or regional standards and there were 50 county champions in Northampton.

Linda Carter addressed Cabinet as the Club Secretary and believed that the Council had promised to maintain the track.  They had 700 members and coaches who spent a lot of time with them and the local schools also used the facilities.  Their development had been delayed due to the deterioration of the track and wanted the Landlord to be more involved.   She believed that the Club should be included in the list of consultees and be more involved.  In response to Councillor Woods’ question she confirmed with funding they would build a Club House, improve indoor facilities and have storage for their own equipment.

Tony Clarke commented that the report was potentially good news for Northampton to raise their profile compared to other cities around us.  This was an opportunity to put right and build better facilities for the Athletics Club and the Football Club.  They had contacts with 50,000 young people per year and over 600 amateur footballers had signed on.  They needed an athletics club fit for purpose and for the size of the town to raise the profile and standards.  The standard of the track was poor before Northampton Football Club took it over and it had cost the Council £450,000 to manage.  Northampton Football Club had now lost £1.8 million and were unable to subsidise additional sport at the venue.  If all parties had worked together four years ago then more money would have been provided but the Football Club had to lower aspirations and downgrade their plans when what they needed was to have proper facilities for a town of this size.  In response to Councillor PD Varnsverry’s question, Mr Clarke confirmed that the artist’s impression in the Chronicle and Echo was the preferred design three years ago but now may need to be revised.  The licence did not work when the Council was the landlord and did not work when Northampton Football Club was the landlord as for the first two years the Club was undercharging and because of the money lost, were unable to uphold the agreement.  A renegotiation of funds had to be arranged and for 50% of all income be ring fenced for maintenance of facilities.  In response to further questioning he confirmed that there was back rent owing which was £20,000 so when they negotiated it was then £9,000.  He also confirmed that the town was not building a new stadium because of restricted funds so they want to replace the track to become competition standard.  If the Council worked with Northampton Football Club then they could achieve huge gains for town.

Item 9

Mr Baker addressed Cabinet thanking the Council for considering public opinion in consultation of the Market Square Fountain.  He wanted confirmation of what security measures would be in place against vandalism and asked Cabinet to reconsider the positioning of the fountain to the middle of the square as it would disrupt businesses in its designated location.

Item 9 & 13

Beverley Mennell confirmed to Cabinet that she had attended the Eastfield Residents Association where the PFI Consultation was being carried out.  She considered the information given that the funds were part of the capital receipts from Right to Buy was incorrect as the PFI arrangement was in the form of a loan, payable back over 20 to 30 years.  She wanted the Council to provide transparent details to the residents so they understood the arrangement.  The Water Fountain was the gateway of the town so the Council should ask the people of the town what they wanted and a proper consultation to be carried out.  The maintenance of the fountain was large and the Council should consider if they wanted this cost over the coming years considering the current climate.

Item 13

Norman Adams addressed Cabinet and he compared the PFI Housing proposal to the story of the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ and suggested that the Defend Council Housing (DCH) group would take the role of the child who first pointed out the lack of substance of the new clothes (PFI Funding).  He expressed concern that the Council was agreeing to commit  £275,000 of money earmarked for much needed repairs, with no warranty of anything.

Item 13

Martin De Rosario addressed the Committee and suggested that the PFI was coming to Goldings in 2013 as several homes failed the Decent Homes Standard.  He wanted clarification of what would happen if the Council were unable to match the £100 million given and where the money would come from.

Item 5A

Steve O’Connor felt that the decision to call-in this report was an opportunity to reconsider the decision that Cabinet took.  He considered the debate to call in whether the report was or was not a key decision was irrelevant as not due consideration was given to proposals for the partnership with Northampton County Council and Daventry District Council.  There was a choice to be made and if it was taken to market testing then it would be the wrong decision.