Agenda item

(Report of the Leader of the Council)

The Chair welcomed the Assistant Director People and the Leader of the Council to introduce the Report, who handed over to the Portfolio Holder for People Services, Engagement and Leisure.

The Portfolio Holder introduced the report and highlighted that recent research carried out as part of the corporate plan consultation, highlighted that priorities for residents included Council accessibility and communication, and improving face to face services and this was also the experience of Members. It would also be available for the voluntary sector to use and create a town hub, confirming the proposed opening times. The Assembly Rooms did not provide a suitable alternative to a front desk as it failed to provide decency to people who may already be in a vulnerable situation.

The Leader of the Council highlighted that the report also dealt with the issue of moving committee meetings to Marmion House where it was more accessible, there would be a bigger public gallery and give opportunities for better ICT whilst giving the Council an exciting opportunity to look embrace the heritage of the building and engage residents to look at use of the Town Hall for other purposes.

The Committee made the following comments/observations and asked the following questions:

1.     Whether the item had been on the forward plan?

It was confirmed that the matter had gone on to the plan on the 14^th august.

2.     Whether the Council were turning their back on its heritage by using some of the budget for the town hall improvements for this project highlighting that the town hall was still available for use during the day?

Whether spending money on new items such as ICT and furniture in a temporary location was a waste of money and how could this be justified knowing that moving forward there are more budgetary pressures on the Council and whether accessibility should be considered at all costs? It was highlighted that the public gallery was rarely filled at the Town Hall.

The Leader of the Council highlighted that whilst the building was only used for meetings in the evening, it was set up as a Chamber all the time. When there had been matters of public interest in recent years the Town Hall had not been able to accommodate all of the public who attended. Currently staff must move between two buildings, there are times that two buildings are using heating and lighting. Whilst there is a lift the building is still not disabled friendly, and the location meant that there were issues getting to and from the building. Freeing up the Town Hall would enable a piece of work to be carried out to look at what else the building could be used for. The hope would be that in the future that this could form part of a heritage trail. Contracts on Marmion House would mean that they would expect to be using this for at least 5 years.

The Portfolio Holder confirmed that there were constant complaints about the recording system and that this needed improving at either location.

The Cost of the relocation of the Committee meeting would not require all of the town hall budget referring to the figures in the report.

3.     It was noted that there were concerns around personal safety particularly with the recent riots and with the darker nights when people may be walking to and from locations alone.

4.     Whether a piece of work would be carried out to look at what could be done with the building?

The Leader of the Council confirmed that they would like to get all interested parties involved to look at how the Town Hall could be used and they had asked officers if they could look at whether there were any possible grants that they could apply for to support with the heritage of the Town Hall.

5.     How the projected figures of 200 enquiries per week had been established when previous data suggested that the TIC were receiving 44 enquiries per month and were these overestimated? Whether a new purpose-built location would be better, highlighting that any location would have the issue of residents attending with personal matters to discuss at the front desk?

The Portfolio Holder highlighted that Marmion House could not be decommissioned for several years due to contracts. The Council did not know how many people were not using the TIC as they are unaware of it or because it is unsuitable.

The Leader of the Council highlighted that there are a number of people that still attend Marmion House to find it closed and they were unsure if they were capturing all of the vulnerable residents within the borough. They also confirmed that there would be a system to triage visitors at the front desk and take them to a separate room if necessary.

Officers confirmed that the figures are projected and that the service could be scaled up or down depending on the need.

6.     The Committee suggested that the problems of privacy at the TIC could be addresses in the same manner as at Marmion House.

7.     Whether Marmion house was open at the time of the meeting?

It was confirmed that it was not.

8.     It was highlighted that a petition had been submitted previously showing that over 1000 people had wanted the reopening of the front desk.

9.     Would the improvements and inclusion of the Town Hall as part of a heritage trail increase tourism within the town.

The Leader confirmed that they would like to implement a proper heritage trail within the town including the town hall.

10.Whether this decision should be a Full Council matter?

The Leader confirmed that they would be happy for the matter to be discussed at Full Council if this was decided that this was required.

It was highlighted by Officers that this paper was not concerned with the disposal of Marmion House and there were no decisions being made on that matter.

Resolved that the Committee endorsed the following recommendations for Cabinet:

The Chair thanked the Officers and Portfolio Holders for their attendance and invited them to leave.