Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Report of Chief Executive Officer


									                                                            MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

                       Report of Head of Regeneration
                           Select Commission 1
                             3 November, 2011


1.     SUMMARY

This report details the process and outcomes following the decision of the Portfolio
Holder for the Environment in July 2010 (Ref 10/06/ENV) to market test the
management of the council’s leisure service in order to determine if better value for
money might be achieved through the delivery of services by an alternative
management vehicle.

It is a Key Decision as it relates to potential revenue savings in excess of £50,000.

The decision first appeared on the Forward Plan in November 2008.


To be Resolved by the Executive Mayor

(i)   That tender 1 is selected as the council’s Preferred Partner for the
management of the council’s leisure centres and that the Variant Bid of tender 1 is

(ii)   That Meden Sports Centre is retained in the contract on the terms included in
the Invitation to Tender subject to determination of the 2012/13 revenue budget and
provision of the required planned preventative maintenance budget identified in the
body of the report.


3.1    Context; decision to market test leisure services

3.1.1. The decision to market test the council’s leisure services followed the
completion of an options appraisal of Leisure and Cultural Services which was
undertaken as part of the council’s business transformation programme. Consultants
were appointed in 2008 to review services in order to assess the effectiveness and
efficiency of current and potential alternative management arrangements to ensure
value for money was being achieved.

DRAFT_251011                                                                        1
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

The final options appraisal report noted the positive performance of services but also
determined that, if financial savings were the key driver for the council, this could be
achieved by the outsourcing of leisure centres in which case either a private sector
trust or existing trust model was likely to provide the greatest revenue saving.

3.1.2. As a consequence the potential to transfer leisure centres plus the leisure
development function was further investigated in order to inform a future decision
about whether to pursue an alternative management vehicle. In July 2009 the
consultants were re – commissioned to further develop the initial findings and
specifically to produce detailed operational business plans for each of the facilities
on the basis of current performance data, the council’s requirements and the
consultant’s view of how a future operator might develop their bid price for a 10 year

3.1.3. The findings of this report informed the decision taken by the Portfolio Holder
for Environment in July 2010 which resolved that market testing of the council’s
leisure centres and leisure development service be progressed (Ref 10/06/ENV) in
order to determine if better value for money might be achieved through the delivery
of services by an alternative management vehicle.

3.1.4. During development of the contract documentation, it was decided that the
leisure development service should be removed from the process due to uncertainty
surrounding the external funding for the service.

3.2    Market testing process

3.2.1. Following the decision to market test the services a Project Team and Project
Board was established to manage the task. The Project Team included
representatives of all key council services required to deliver the project including
Leisure, Finance, Human Resources, Legal, Property, Design and Risk
Management. The Project Board comprised the Head of Finance, Property and
Revenue Services; Head of Corporate Administration; Corporate Director for
Regeneration and Regulatory Services; Head of Regeneration; Corporate Director
for Housing and Environment; and the Head of Operations.

3.2.2. In recognition of the complexity of the procurement work, professional
advisors were appointed to advise and support officers through the process including
the production of the contract documentation. Strategic Leisure Limited (SLL), a
specialist leisure consultancy with particular expertise in leisure management
procurement work, was appointed in August 2010 following a tender exercise.
The leisure centre management contract was advertised by an Expressions of
Interest (EOI) advert in Leisure Opportunities, a national industry journal, on 28
October 2010. Those operators interested in the management contract were
required to complete a Pre Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) which assessed a
range of factors including companies’ financial robustness, professional ability,
health and safety, equal opportunities and environmental policy.

3.2.3. Fifteen PQQs were requested and eleven submitted by the closing date of 19
November 2010, reflecting the high degree of interest in the contract.

DRAFT_251011                                                                        2
                                                            MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.2.4. Following evaluation of the PQQs, seven companies were notified that they
had been selected to progress to the Invitation to Tender (ITT) phase in early
February 2011; one company withdrew from the process at that stage due to other

Companies progressing to tender were:

      Active Nation (AN)
      Barnsley Premier Leisure (BPL)
      Nuneaton and Bedworth Leisure Trust (NBLT)
      Parkwood Leisure
      Serco
      Strategic Leisure Management (SLM)

Tender documentation was issued on 17 May 2011 and a Bidders Day held on 25
May 2011 at which representatives from all six companies met key officers and were
taken on an initial familiarisation tour of the leisure centres.

The tender period ran from 17 May until 8 July 2011. Companies were required to
submit detailed responses to the council’s requirements. These requirements were
specified in the Invitation to Tender, the Specification and the draft Contract and

During this stage operators undertook further site visits, sought clarifications of the
council’s requirements, and developed their proposals for the long term management
of the facilities and the cost to the council.

Tenders were opened on 11 July 2011 and were received from five companies:

      Active Nation (AN)
      Barnsley Premier Leisure (BPL)
      Nuneaton and Bedworth Leisure Trust (NBLT)
      Serco
      Strategic Leisure Management (SLM)

3.2.5. Evaluation of the detailed bids was undertaken between 11 July and 23
September 2011.
The outcomes of the evaluation were considered by the Project Board on 26
September 2011 and tenderers were notified on 4 October 2011; the top two scoring
submissions were selected to progress further at that stage as potential partners.
Following further consideration of the financial implications of the submissions of
tender 1 and tender 2 by the Project Board, tender 2 was informed that their
submission was not to be further progressed.
3.2.6. A delegated decision on the application for discretionary National Non
Domestic Rate (NNDR) Relief by tender 1 will inform the Preferred Partner award
decision scheduled for 9 December 2011.

DRAFT_251011                                                                       3
                                                              MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.2.7. Should the decision be to transfer the management of the services to the
Preferred Partner, there will be a period of detailed contract negotiations including
agreement of the final management fee. Subsequently the contract will be awarded
followed by a mobilisation period, including detailed staff consultation, before the
management of the service is transferred and the contract commences.

3.3    Tender documentation/Contract requirements

3.3.1. The requirements of the contract were detailed in the service Specification,
Invitation to Tender, and draft Contract and Lease.

3.3.2. Tenders were invited for the management and operation of all five leisure
centres for a 10 year contract with an extension of up to five further years subject to
satisfactory performance, and tenderers were required to submit a Contract Price for
the 10 year contract.

3.3.3. Employees would transfer under TUPE, the Transfer of Undertakings
(Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 which require that the terms and
conditions of employees’ contracts of employment transfer to the new employer.

3.3.4. With respect to pensions, admittance to the Local Government Pension
Scheme (LGPS) i.e. Admitted Body Status (ABS), was included in the ITT as the
council’s preferred option. Alternatively the operator would be required to offer
transferring employees membership of a Government Actuary’s Department (GAD)
certificated pension scheme which is at least broadly comparable to the LGPS. Plans
for the deployment and pay and conditions of new employees were also requested.

3.3.5. Although the Government revoked Circular 03/2003 which included the Code
of Practice on Workforce Matters in Local Authority Service Contracts before the ITT
was issued, tenderers were required to demonstrate their commitment to applying
the principles of Code. The policy behind the Code is the prevention of a two – tier
workforce emerging post transfer, with a commitment to employing new employees
on fair and reasonable terms and conditions that are no less favourable than those of
transferred employees.

3.3.6. The leisure facilities would be leased to the operator on a part repairing and
insuring basis with asset responsibilities being clearly identified as either Landlord
(council) or Tenant (operator) obligations; the leases would be in place for the same
period as the contract.

3.3.7. Meden Sports Centre (MSC) was included in the Mandatory Bid but due to the
asset liability concerns, alternative contract terms were included pending resolution
of the asset issues. The terms for MSC include a contract period on a six month
rolling contract basis, with the council retaining all liability for the asset, and of any
potential redundancy issues for transferred employees should all/part of the centre
close in future.

3.3.8. Obligations of the Specification include the designation of a number of
bookings as Protected Sessions (including swimming clubs, Nova Swim Squad,
Basketball Club); the operator would not be able to change these bookings without
the agreement of the hirer and the council’s client officer (Specification; Annex 1).

DRAFT_251011                                                                          4
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.3.9. Should any changes to the programme be proposed the operator would be
required to complete an Equalities Impact Assessment and seek approval by the
council’s client officer.

3.3.10. In addition, a number of Protected Prices are specified which would be
controlled by the council and which the operator may only increase annually by the
Consumer Prices Index (CPI).

3.3.11. The Protected Prices include adult, senior citizen and junior casual
swimming, junior fitness, club pool hire, club sports hall hire and free entry for carers
of people with disabilities. Free access for development activities is specified and car
parking is to remain free to centre users (Specification; Annex 3).

3.3.12. A draft set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in order to measure
performance against a number of strategic outcomes, and which would form an
element of contract monitoring, was included in the ITT (Specification; Annex 2).
These include measures for:

      Increased participation in leisure centre based activity, including by those on
       low incomes and other target groups and under represented groups.

      Equality of access; a balanced programme reflected in casual and organised
       activities; use of the service reflects the demographic profile of the district.

      Increased use of Water Meadows by non residents/visitors to the district.

      Sustainable jobs for local people; Employment Training Scheme opportunities
       for local people; work placement opportunities for school, Further Education
       and Higher Education students, resident or educated in the District; workforce
       profile reflects the demographic profile of the district.

      Maintained/improved service quality; engagement with local, regional and
       national partners to improve service delivery.

      The value placed on the service by users and increased user satisfaction.

      Reduction in CO2 emissions; active promotion of reduction in energy
       consumption; improved recycling rates.

      Contribution to shared agenda issues; reduction in anti social behaviour in
       target areas; reduction in obesity; facilities for young people.

3.3.13. Minimum operational requirements for the service including centre opening
hours were identified in the Specification. Tenderers’ ability to deliver the services
was assessed through the responses to a number of Method Statements which
tested the understanding of, and approach to, the operational requirements and the
resources, experience and successes of the tenderer in the respective areas.

DRAFT_251011                                                                         5
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.3.14. The Method Statements to assess quality of service delivery were:

      Quality of service and programme development proposals
      Synergy with Council and other partners
      Quality Assurance
      Health, Safety & Environmental Management
      Maintenance of the Building, Plant, Equipment, Fixtures and Fittings
      Programming and Sports Development
      Marketing and Promotional Plans
      Fees and Charges
      Customer Care
      Staffing
      Performance Management and Reporting
      Cleaning, Waste Management and Pest Control
      Vending and Retail Services

3.3.15. Specifically, tenderers were required to provide evidence within their Method
Statements as follows:

Quality of service and programme development proposals
-      approach to the development of the current service quality and service
delivery proposals to demonstrate future development in quality of service and
service delivery over the life of the Contract.

Synergy with Council and other partners
-       approach to working in partnership with the council and other partners
identifying evidence of joint improvement initiatives, identification of successes and a
commitment to delivering the Contract in line with shared objectives with the Council.

Quality Assurance
-      approach to quality assurance including details of how the proposals will be
implemented including demonstration that systems and procedures are in
accordance with best practice and the industry quality standard Quest.

Health, Safety & Environmental Management
-      evidence of an accredited health and safety policy that would be applicable to
all aspects of the Service including, as a minimum, safe working practices, site rules
and regulations, site procedures, method statements, COSHH information and
reporting procedure, plus details of their Environmental Policy.

Maintenance of the Building, Plant, Equipment, Fixtures and Fittings
-      proposed planned, preventative maintenance programmes for a ten year
period for all aspects of the Services as determined by their responsibilities under
the Contract and Lease plus inspection and maintenance regimes in terms of
programmed maintenance, unplanned maintenance, and proposals for continuing
energy efficiency

Programming and Sports Development
-      proposals for programming of the facilities i.e. the type of activities and
services planned, including proposals for sports development.

DRAFT_251011                                                                        6
                                                           MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Marketing and Promotional Plans
-       proposals to ensure optimal and efficient use of all facilities through the
effective use of marketing and advertising.

Fees and Charges
-      proposals for fees and charges including the requirement for concessionary

Customer Care
-        approach to customer interface issues including the review processes for
measuring the effectiveness of customer care, and proposals for the booking of
facilities and activities

-       approach to staffing issues including assumptions made in relation to the
transfer of staff, including reference to TUPE and in applying the principles of the
Code on Workforce Matters; staffing plans for the delivery of the Contract including
plans for deployment and pay and conditions of any new employees and new casual
personnel; staff training plans and standards; proposed pension arrangements; a
mobilisation plan, including the management of change for employees and proposed
transitional arrangements; details of the proposed approach to the protection of
Children, Young People and Vulnerable Adults

Performance Management and Reporting
-      approach to reporting designated performance information to the council
including expected achievement of positive performance trends throughout the life of
the Contract and the processes adopted to engage key stakeholders in consultation
about service provision.

Cleaning, Waste Management and Pest Control
-      approach to maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction with the
cleanliness of the facilities, including proposals for routine, reactive and deep
cleaning, plus proposals for waste management and disposal.

Vending and Retail Services
-      approach to the provision of vending and retail including operational policies,
procedures and practices to ensure hygiene standards are maintained at all times.
Additionally an evaluation was undertaken of the Robustness of Business Plans as a
cross check that the Contract Price was sustainable; this evaluation tested that the
plans were robust, financially sound and operationally practical.

3.3.16. The Suitability of the Proposed Management Model and Contract
Compliance was evaluated by Legal Services with external legal advice with respect
to the alternative management vehicle proposals.

3.3.17. References were also requested.

3.3.18. The ITT stated the details of the Price:Quality weighting (38:62) for the
evaluation and the respective weightings for each of the Method statements (ITT;
Key Evaluation Themes table, p. 20 – 21).

DRAFT_251011                                                                      7
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.3.19. In addition to the Mandatory Bid (that is, the net cost of the services including
all operational requirements), the ITT included the provision for fully costed Variant
Bids to be submitted where tenderers considered these would add further value.
Variant Bids, for example, could be income generating projects and facility
enhancements or alternative proposals which would realise the council’s stated
objectives such as possible amendments to the Specification that, whilst not
compromising the quality of the service, could realise additional revenue benefits
and a lower cost to the council.

3.3.20. Following contract negotiations all final agreed tender documentation,
including the requirements of the Specification and ITT, the submitted Method
Statements, and the contract conditions and lease for the premises would be
incorporated into the formal contract.

3.4.   Evaluation methodology

3.4.1. Whilst revenue savings were a key objective of the market testing of the
services, the importance to the council of maintaining and improving service quality
was reflected in the weighting applied to the evaluation of financial and quality
elements. Economy (finance) and quality (effectiveness/efficiency) were evaluated
on a 38:62 split (ITT; Key Evaluation Themes table. p. 20 – 21).

3.4.2. The level of net revenue cost (economy) was scored dependent on the
Tender Price compared to the council’s affordability threshold per annum, with
scores allocated against the Price based on the variance from the base affordability
figure. The affordability threshold is the budget available to deliver the service
excluding any retained costs such as Service Level Agreements, officer costs for
partnership management, and contract variation budget provision. If the Tender
Price was in excess of the council’s affordability this was scored zero.

3.4.3. Economy also included an assessment of the Robustness of the Business
Plan to cross check for sustainability.

3.4.4. Effectiveness and efficiency was assessed by 15 Method Statements.

3.4.5. The Evaluation Team comprised the Project Team members plus a number of
co – opted officers with specific expertise in key areas; for example, equalities,
training and development, marketing and communications, maintenance, and
performance management.

3.4.6. A standardised score sheet was developed for each Method Statement with a
number of areas of investigation to test tenderers’ detailed responses.

3.4.7. A minimum of two officers independently assessed each Method Statement.
In addition, the project consultant undertook an independent evaluation of the

3.4.8. The council’s and the project consultant’s results were input to the project
scoring matrix to determine final scores.

DRAFT_251011                                                                         8
                                                          MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.5.   Evaluation outcomes

3.5.1. Five tenders were received and all tenders were evaluated; the results are as
in Table 1.

                Maximum       Tender     Tender      Tender     Tender     Tender
                Score         1          2           3          4          5

Economy         38.00%        21.81%     15.69%      12.01%     19.46%     8.47%
Effectiveness   29.5%         17.55%     19.34%      20.77%     11.55%     13.51%
Efficiency      32.5%         23.64%     21.26%      20.78%     14.24%     13.20%
Total           100.00%       63.00%     56.29%      53.56%     45.25%     35.19%

                 Table 1: Tender evaluation scores – all tenders

3.5.2. Two tenders (tender 3 and tender 5) did not meet the council’s affordability
threshold and were scored zero on this element.

3.5.3. Although meeting the affordability threshold, tender 4 scored less well with
respect to effectiveness and efficiency.

3.5.4. For ease of comparison, evaluation results for the two highest scoring tenders
(both of which met the council’s affordability threshold) are as in Table 2:

                                 Maximum       Tender     Tender
                                 Score         1          2

                 Economy         38.00%        21.81%     15.69%
                 Effectiveness   29.5%         17.55%     19.34%
                 Efficiency      32.5%         23.64%     21.26%
                 Total           100.00%       63.00%     56.29%

       Table 2: Tender evaluation scores – two highest scoring tenders

3.5.5. A fully financed Variant Bid was submitted by tender 1 which proposes a
number of improvements to Water Meadows. These are: remodelling of the
reception area to tighten access control, create a warm welcome, and incorporate a
retail area; remodelling of the meeting/multifunction space and relaxation area to
create additional fitness space; and installation of new water based play equipment
on pool side targeted at the pre school age group and families.

DRAFT_251011                                                                     9
                                                            MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.5.6. When the revenue implications (that is, a reduced management fee due to the
resultant additional income) of the Variant Bid is taken into account the revised
evaluation results are as in Table 3. The total score for tender 1 increases from 63%
(Mandatory Bid) to 66% (Variant Bid).

                                  Maximum       Tender      Tender
                                  Score         1           2

                 Economy          38%           24.85%      15.69%
                 Effectiveness    29.5%         17.55%      19.34%
                 Efficiency       32.5%         23.64%      21.26%
                 Total            100%          66.04%      56.29%

                 Table 3: Tender evaluation scores – Variant Bid

3.5.7. The annual revenue savings compared to the council’s affordability are
included in Exempt Item 1.

3.5.8. Tender 1 (42%) and tender 2 (41%) performed similarly with respect to quality
(effectiveness and efficiency).

3.5.9. On the basis of the evaluation outcome including financial and quality
assessment it is recommended that tender 1 is accepted as the council’s Preferred
Partner and that the Variant Bid of Tender 1 is accepted.

3.5.10. The contract management fee submitted in the Form of Tender (as indicated
in Exempt Item 1) would be likely to change as a consequence of the NNDR
discretionary relief assessment and contract negotiations. The final agreed figure
would be dependent on the assumptions and proposals made in the tender
submission and the council’s view on these matters.

3.6.   Tender 1 offer

3.6.1. The tenderer is a FTSE 100 listed company.

3.6.2. Current partnerships range from District and Metropolitan Councils to national
sports centre management, with individual contract values up to £9 million/year.

3.6.3. The management model proposed for the district is to manage the leisure
portfolio through a local Not for Profit Distribution Organisation Industrial Provident
Society (IPS) Trust. The Trust is already incorporated with charitable objectives and
has approval from HMRC as to its status for tax purposes.

3.6.4. This option would provide financial benefits to the council through relief on
business rates, VAT exemption on sporting and related activities plus access to
grant funding to develop community activities. It would also provide benefits in terms
of single focus and community involvement.

3.6.5. If selected as Preferred Partner, the IPS would be established in order to
make it bespoke to this local authority partnership and the necessary specific

DRAFT_251011                                                                       10
                                                            MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

documentation (objects, powers, liability and dissolution), naming and tri - partite
arrangements put in place. During this time, the vision and plans for the trust would
be developed.

3.6.6. The council would not incur any costs to set up the local Trust.

3.6.7. The headline contractual arrangement would be directly between the council
and the Trust. Within this direct agreement the Trust passes the obligations of the
partnership to the tenderer to provide the services through a managing agency
agreement. As income generated at the leisure facilities would amount to less than
the operating costs, the council would pay the Trust for the delivery of the service.
The tenderer would then be paid a management fee in accordance with the
managing agency agreement. All financial and operational risks of the partnership
would be assumed by the managing agent on behalf of the Trust.

3.6.8. As an existing HM customs and excise pre –approved IPS is utilised, the IPS
already has existing trustees; these trustees who are members of other Trust Boards
would support the establishment of a local Board of Trustees during the mobilisation
phase and over time the experienced trustees would be replaced by local trustees.
Thus the local Board would benefit initially from the experience of existing trustees;
the mobilisation would be expedited; and good governance would be ensured from
the start of the partnership. As local trustees are recruited to the Board a more local
dimension would be established as existing trustees were replaced.

3.6.9. The model also provides for council representation on the Board subject to
the objects and powers of the Trust.

3.6.10. In addition, once the local trust is established, Charity Commission
registration may be pursued if considered appropriate on the basis that it may lead to
perceived higher levels of public confidence. Registration does not impact on the
financial benefits deliverable through the management model.

3.6.11. The community leisure trust would be at the heart of local initiatives. Key
personnel within the trust would be expected to attend local sporting and activity
partnerships and community groups. Equally, the trust would request to be involved
in steering groups and joint initiatives that are led by the council and other partners.
In this way, the trust would be represented across a range of community and
business led groups to ensure that the trust may influence local community activity.

3.6.12. This model has been set up on 15 occasions elsewhere and details of the
contracts have been provided.

3.6.13. References from three local authority partners gave excellent ratings across
a range of measures with respect to the tenderer’s performance. Specific comments
for one authority included that the partnership arrangement had exceeded the
council’s expectations; that the facilities were now open for longer periods; that more
staff were employed (with an average increase of 20 staff); that a wider range of
services was provided for customers with reduced prices; that more people (21%)
used the service; that employment terms and pension arrangements had been
protected; and that the Council had seen substantial capital investment with no

DRAFT_251011                                                                        11
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

additional cost to the authority together with significant reductions in the original
revenue operating budget.

3.6.14. Key elements of the tender 1 bid include:

      a significant financial saving to the council compared to the affordability level
       for the operation of the service

      a submission which reflects a spirit of partnership and which demonstrates a
       thorough understanding of corporate and wider objectives, of the vital role of
       wider partnership engagement to maximise effective service delivery and a
       commitment to shared goals

      the establishment of a bespoke local community leisure trust with local
       trustees providing a local focus, supported through the initial period by
       experienced trustees from other Boards

      potential additional financial benefits through a surplus share arrangement (as
       a consequence of revenue over achievement) of 33.3% to each of the council,
       the trust and the tenderer

      transfer of risk to an experienced leisure management partner; 15 contracts
       are currently operating in the United Kingdom under the same arrangement
       as that proposed for the council

      a fully funded capital enhancement to Water Meadows Swimming Complex
       should the Variant Bid be accepted, providing new activity areas and new
       target market activities

      agreement that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)
       Regulations 2006 (TUPE) will apply to this partnership and that all employees
       would transfer whilst retaining their terms and conditions of employment;
       significant experience in transferring employees in other partnerships with
       over 3,000 TUPE transfers; a comprehensive communication plan and
       induction during mobilisation period; commitment to engaging with staff and
       their representatives early in the process and to transparency about any
       proposed service changes.

      commitment to applying for Admitted Body Status (ABS) to the Local
       Government Pension Scheme (LGPS); and, for employees that are not
       currently eligible to join the LGPS and any new starters, access to a
       Stakeholder Pension Scheme and match contributions up to 6%.

      new employees joining the service offered comparable terms and conditions;
       compliance with the principles outlined within the Workforce Code offering no
       less favourable terms and conditions to new roles/starters; commitment to
       abiding by the principles of good employment in their approach to managing
       this contract.

DRAFT_251011                                                                        12
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

     recognition of and formal agreements with Trade Unions, including UNITE,
      Unison and GMB, in place in current partnerships, with Employers and the
      Trade Unions recognising each other as partners in the workplace.

     commitment to a formal Joint Consultative Forum (Workforce Representative
      Group) to ensure that recognised trade union representatives are fully
      involved in the transfer process and to provide an ongoing forum where formal
      communication, consultation and negotiation can be conducted in relation to
      collective matters affecting employees.

     commitment to retaining the current service structure; appointment of a new
      partnership wide Quality and Health and Safety Manager post; additional
      Customer Advisor posts introduced to increase health and fitness
      memberships; plus the option to draw upon significant resources from the
      wider     organisation    to     support    service     delivery    including
      maintenance/technical, quality assurance, health and safety and procurement.

     commitment to staff training, communication, succession planning and
      commitment to jobs for young people; commitment to Investors in People
      accreditation within 18 months.

     positive performance with respect to staffing modules of Quest (the national
      leisure industry accreditation scheme); tender 1 has an average score of 7.3
      with a high of 9.3; the current service scored an average of 6.8 for these
      modules in the first assessment in 2010.

     an excellent track record of programme development evidenced in this being
      one of the tenderer’s best performing elements in Quest accreditation with
      sites scoring from 7.2 to a high of 9.6 (maximum score of 10); a commitment
      to achieving a score in the top 25% of the country for this partnership in order
      to drive effective, innovative and balanced programmes.

     commitment to ensuring equity for all users regardless of age, ability, gender,
      race, ethnicity, religious belief, sexuality or social/economic status reflected in
      the tenderer’s Equal Opportunities Policy.

     a submission demonstrating a proactive approach to Health and Safety
      management including good/safe working practices, procedures and systems
      for monitoring, recording and reporting on H&S.

     commitment to supporting the council’s objective to operate the leisure
      facilities in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner including
      reducing energy consumption, minimising chemical usage, recycling
      appropriate waste and recycling and reducing water consumption.

     extensive experience of introducing technology and processes to reduce
      energy consumption, thermal imaging being of particular note; an initial,
      limited, survey of the council’s leisure centres was undertaken for the tender
      submission and concluded that there is significant wasted energy even at the
      newest and most recently refurbished centres. As a consequence, the

DRAFT_251011                                                                         13
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

       tenderer has committed to reducing energy consumption at the centres by
       more than 20% contributing to the council’s carbon reduction objectives.

      gas and electricity purchased through the tenderer’s Group Procurement
       Division enabling the most advantageous prices to be obtained; fully managed
       process carried out by a specialist energy consultant.

      a performance management system integrating the features and requirements
       of Quest, ISO 9000 and the EFQM Excellence Model.

      commitment to pursuing Quest accreditation for all facilities in order to drive
       continuous improvement; 36 sites are currently registered to Quest within
       other partnerships; Water Meadows received accreditation in 2010 with a
       score of 65%; the average score within tenderer’s other partnerships is 76%,
       with a high of 89%.

      a 9% target increase in Quest scores at Water Meadows by the third
       assessment cycle determined by benchmarking the tenderer’s average and
       highest Quest third cycle scores (i.e. within 4 years) .

      a fully costed asset management plan to ensure the maintenance,
       redecoration and refurbishment of the facilities through the life of the contract;
       support to local technical team by Group/Central Technical Management

      use of a comprehensive Computer Aided Facility Management (CAFM)
       package providing ongoing live evidence of the planned and preventative
       maintenance undertaken to building, plant, and equipment, inspections
       carried out (both in-house and by external specialists), testing undertaken and
       defects/faults rectified.

      a commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and delivery of a
       range of financed CSR initiatives within the partnership area.

3.7.   Meden Sports Centre

3.7.1. As noted in section 3.3 Meden Sports Centre (MSC) was included in the
Invitation to Tender on different contract terms pending resolution of asset liability

3.7.2. In 2009 a detailed condition survey of the facility was commissioned in order
to inform discussions about the future of the centre. The report concluded that the
centre, which was built approximately 40 years ago, is nearing the end of its design
life and has fallen below current design standards and good practice. The building
performs poorly with respect to accessibility, sustainability and energy use.

3.7.3. The report identified an asset liability of £1,400,000 including structural and
fabric, mechanical and electrical, and access work, in order to maintain the facility
but with no enhancement to provision. The projected costs were supported by the
county council’s own estimate at that time of £0.75m maintenance expenditure over
the ensuing four years.

DRAFT_251011                                                                         14
                                                               MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.7.4. It was determined by county and district council property officers that there
was no potential for economic refurbishment of the centre, as this would not
represent value for money. The technical analysis undertaken by the county council
in preparation for the, then, Building Schools for the Future initiative determined that
refurbishing the building would cost in excess of 90 per cent of a rebuild cost.

3.7.5. In light of the asset liabilities of the centre the facility was included in the
contract on a six month rolling contract basis with the council retaining all liability for
the asset, that is, both the council’s and the operator’s responsibilities pending
resolution of the asset issues.

3.7.6. For the other centres, asset obligations are identified as Landlord (council) or
Tenant (operator) responsibility in the contract documentation. It was considered
appropriate to retain all asset liability for Meden SC to ensure best value was
obtained through market testing by preventing a situation where a bidder might build
contingency into their bid due to the poor condition of the centre which would then
impact on the council obtaining best value through the tender process.

3.7.7. The funding for the council’s asset obligation for all centres has been provided
for in the contract affordability calculation.

However, additional resources would be required to provide for the retention of the
operator’s liability for Meden SC by the council. Over the 10 year contract these are
£200,000; for year one the requirement is approximately £60,000; for years two and
three an additional £47,000 would be required; for the first five years the total
requirement is £130,000.

3.7.8. It may be possible to provide for some of this requirement through enhanced
Joint Use funding which the council would receive should a new Joint Use
Agreement (JUA) be entered into. The new JUA would be a three way agreement
between Nottinghamshire County Council, Meden School and Technology College
and Mansfield District Council.

3.7.9. Discussions have commenced with the county council with a view to entering
into the new agreement. Indeed, a formal agreement with the county would need to
be in place if the decision is to transfer the management of the services to a third
party in order to have the legal permissions in place for the management of Meden
SC. The JUA provides for such an arrangement subject to approval by the county

3.7.10. The new JUA incorporates a revised funding model based on the Local
Management of Schools formula which would provide an annual contribution of
approximately £76,000 for the operation of Meden SC with a condition that 50 per
cent of this funding is ring fenced for repair and maintenance issues. The county
council’s previous revenue contribution was approximately £38,000 plus a £6,000
ring fenced budget for repair and maintenance work agreed between the county and
district councils. Therefore, an additional £38,000 would be available annually for
investment in the asset.

DRAFT_251011                                                                           15
                                                              MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.7.11. The county council has noted that, should the LMS budget formula cease to
operate, it would be replaced by an alternative funding mechanism; this would be a
consideration should Meden School move to Academy status.

3.7.12. On the basis that an additional £38,000 would be forthcoming annually
through the JUA, it may be an option to use this funding to provide for the additional
operator asset obligations retained by the council. However, based on the level of
financial requirement, this would necessitate the drawing down of future years’ JUA
maintenance funding. Although acknowledged as an option in the draft JUA, this
might be deemed a risk at this stage until discussions have been sufficiently
progressed and the detailed requirements of the Devolved Maintenance Schedule
within the JUA are better understood.

3.7.13. It may therefore be advisable to make alternative provision for the immediate
asset requirement for Meden SC and it is proposed that consideration is given to
initial year one support of £60,000 being provided by the council.

3.7.14. That said, subject to detailed contract negotiations, the additional council
support may not ultimately be required as tender 1 has included a level of provision
over the 10 year contract for asset liabilities at Meden SC although not required to do
so within the tender.

3.7.15. There are further asset considerations for Meden SC due to the presence of
asbestos. An asbestos survey undertaken for Meden SC in 2009 indicates that there
is no current risk subject to appropriate management practices but the concern
would be disturbance as a consequence of work to the building for which appropriate
measures would need to be put in place.

3.7.16. The tenderer has made a number of comments with respect to the
prevalence of asbestos at the site including the view that asbestos related incidents,
claims, works and reinstatement should be the responsibility of the council but that
the operator would accept responsibility for the management of the risk register and
manage the process of removal if required to do so. It is considered by our project
consultant that this would be the likely view of any tenderer.

3.7.17. The asbestos liability of Meden SC has not been allowed for in the condition
survey on the basis that the cost and scale of the work is difficult to quantify. It is to
be expected that financial provision will be required in the future to deal with
asbestos issues whether as a consequence of repair work and/or centre
improvements and there will therefore be an additional financial requirement.

3.7.18. In relation to the operation of Meden SC, it should be noted that the district
council has not received any contribution from the county council in 2011/12 pending
completion of the JUA negotiations, nor has revenue budget provision been made for
the centre as a consequence of decisions taken during 2010/11.

3.7.19. If deemed appropriate the rolling six month contract term included in the
tender documentation for Meden SC could be extended. It would be most
appropriate to address this issue at contract negotiation as, although potentially
increasing the timescale for this stage, if such discussions were held following
contract award the operator would be in a stronger negotiating position.

DRAFT_251011                                                                          16
                                                          MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.7.20. There would need to be consideration of the specific contract term extension
in light of the identified asset issues and the views expressed about the poor value
for money of centre refurbishment, aligned with the asbestos risk. From an
operator’s perspective, increasing the term might provide a level of reassurance
enabling longer term planning of service development and increased security around
new initiatives and payback. However, should the centre have to close at some point
in the future (e.g. due to a major asset failure) the council would be liable for
enhanced breakage costs such as the operator’s unrecoverable costs (early
cancellation of service and supply agreements), re - spread of central costs and loss
of profit.

3.8.   Contract, performance and partnership management

3.8.1. By entering into a partnership for the management of leisure centres the
council would not have direct control of facility management.

3.8.2. That said the council would retain ownership of the buildings and
responsibility for the management of the contract to ensure that the operator
delivered the service to the council’s requirement; such control would be exerted
through the various contract arrangements.

3.8.3. Following contract negotiations and contract award, the requirements of the
Specification including the series of outcome based KPIs, of the ITT and all contract
documentation including the tender’s responses to the Method Statements form the
contract conditions and would be contractually binding.

3.8.4. A number of elements of the service requirements including Protected
Programmes and Protected Prices are controlled by the council. Further an
Equalities Impact Assessment (requiring the approval of council officers) is required
should changes to club provision, school use and centre lessons programme be
proposed to ensure access issues are taken into full consideration.

3.8.5. Monitoring and management of the operator’s performance on a day to day
basis would be undertaken by the client management role of leisure officers.

3.8.6. A remediation process is included within the contract to provide for non
delivery of the service by the operator; this would be further developed to include
penalty payment conditions to provide for serious or repeated non performance. That
said, the aim of the performance monitoring framework within the contract is to
ensure that any non performance issues are rectified as soon as possible in order to
maintain high quality service delivery.

3.8.7. Whilst such formal measures form an element of the contractual
arrangements the Audit Commission (Public sector sports and recreation services.
Making them fit for the future, 2006), determined that the success of any
management arrangement depended on the quality of the partnership which
developed between the parties. Where strong partnership working was identified
which addressed both social and financial outcomes, these were characterised by
explicit shared goals, aligned to corporate priorities, with performance management
systems focussed on outcomes for customers and the community.

DRAFT_251011                                                                     17
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.8.8. The ‘synergy’ Method Statement particularly tested this element of
submissions and specifically required tenderers to evidence their approach to
working in partnership with the council and other partners; to identify evidence of,
and successes with, joint improvement initiatives; to demonstrate an understanding
of current local authority, public sector leisure and the council’s strategic issues; and
to demonstrate a commitment to delivering the contract in line with shared

3.9.   Overview of alternative management vehicle benefits

3.9.1. The delivery of services by an alternative management vehicle has a number
of potential benefits for the delivery of a sustainable quality service.

3.9.2. The eligibility of trust vehicles for mandatory and potential discretionary
National Non Domestic Rate (NNDR) relief, VAT exemption on sporting and related
activities and access to grant funding to develop community activity would provide
financial benefits to the council and the district’s tax payers which are not available
through other forms of delivery, including direct service provision by the council.

3.9.3 By transferring management of the service, there would be a transfer of
financial risk and improved cost certainty for the council (the council’s partner would
incur all operational expenditure whilst retaining income); in the current economic
climate, this may be considered to be particularly beneficial. Unless the contract is
renegotiated (for example, the council requesting a change in service specification),
the management fee is agreed for the 10 year contract period providing certainty and
security of future service provision.

3.9.4. Significantly increased investment in the planned preventative maintenance of
the centres through contractual asset obligations of both the operator and the council
would better protect the future of the facilities.

3.9.5. There is also the opportunity to benefit from wider business resources such as
group procurement, health and safety and maintenance and benefit from economies
of scale of the larger organisations in order to improve service quality.

3.9.6. Service and business benefits may also result from a single service focus,
reduced bureaucracy and accelerated decision making. For example, in house
leisure managers are rightly required to contribute to corporate affairs but such an
obligation diverts management focus away from the leisure operation. As a
consequence of a single service focus, capacity is released to focus on service
improvement, leading to increased usage and income and improvements in user

3.9.7. A bespoke local Board of Trustees would be fully engaged in local community
activity through representation across a range of community and business groups.
The Board would initially benefit from the experience and expertise of existing
trustees with a district dimension being developed as local trustees were recruited to
develop the vision for the trust.

DRAFT_251011                                                                         18
                                                               MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL


4.1. Accept Preferred Partner recommendation and progress contract
negotiations and contract award

4.1.1. Accepting the recommendation would deliver significant revenue savings
compared to the council’s affordability threshold and in relation to the £300,000
targeted saving identified in the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

4.1.2. There would be cost certainty for the council for the duration of the contract

4.1.3. Asset management would be improved, through the planned preventative
maintenance obligations, better protecting the future of the centres.

4.1.4. There would be protection and enhancement of service quality through the
contract commitments.

4.1.5. The partnership with an experienced leisure management company with a
single service focus would enable improvements to service quality.

4.1.6. A bespoke local trust supported by experienced trustees would improve
engagement with community agencies.

4.2.   Do not accept Preferred Partner recommendation

4.2.1. If the recommendation was not accepted, revenue savings through this route
would not be achieved. There would be the requirement for alternative revenue
savings to be identified within the service or by other council services in order to
contribute to the £300,000 targeted saving identified in the Medium Term Financial

4.2.2. All operational risk would remain with the council.

4.2.3. All asset responsibility would remain with the council; there would be no
improvement in asset maintenance safeguarding the future of the facilities.

4.2.4. Service improvement would be subject to the capacity of the service and any
corporate requirements; a single service focus would not be possible.


Risk           Risk Assessment            Risk               Risk Management
Financial      Decision to not transfer; High                Financial     benefits   and
               shortfall on budget saving                    service quality evidenced in
               requirement;       savings                    tender submission; positive
               required through other                        submission; strong in several
               means.                                        areas.
                                                             Options appraisal concluded

DRAFT_251011                                                                         19
                                                      MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

                                                    that services were lean and
                                                    efficient with little potential for
                                                    further efficiencies without a
                                                    step change in operation.
Financial     Delay in decision; shortfall   High   Draft decision report to
              on budget saving                      progress to market testing
              requirement; additional               was referred to Select
              savings required                      Commission 1 before
              elsewhere.                            progressing to decision in
                                                    July 2010.
                                                    SC1 updated about progress
                                                    since November 2010.
                                                    Draft report for Award of
                                                    Preferred Partner referred to
                                                    SC1 for consideration.
Financial     Delay in decision; tenderer    Low    The submission evidences a
              walks away.                           strong commitment to this
                                                    contract; a significant amount
                                                    of effort has been invested in
                                                    tender development including
                                                    numerous sites visits and
                                                    very detailed responses.
Financial     Delay in contract              Med    Determine aspiration for
              negotiations e.g. amended             Meden SC in immediate and
              contract terms for Meden              short term in order to
              SC                                    expedite contract
                                                    negotiations with clarity.
Financial     Contract        negotiations Low      As above, the submission
              breakdown                             evidences           a       strong
                                                    commitment to this contract;
                                                    a significant amount of effort
                                                    has been invested in tender
                                                    development              including
                                                    numerous sites visits and
                                                    very detailed responses.
                                                    The        tender     submission
                                                    includes a detailed, ‘marked
                                                    up’ contract identifying the
                                                    areas for negotiation.
Service       ABS application                Low    Evidence of successful ABS
              unsuccessful                          in a number of other
                                                    contracts in both the
                                                    tenderer’s leisure division
                                                    and other business sectors.
Financial    Challenge by tenderer/s if      Low    Statement in ITT (1.35) that
Reputational decision is not to transfer.           the council is not bound to
                                                    accept the lowest or any
                                                    tender … and accepts no
                                                    liability incurred by
                                                    Contractors submitting

DRAFT_251011                                                                     20
                                                    MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Financial   Financial failure of Trust.   Low     The Trust is protected by a
                                                  Parent Company Guarantee.
Financial   Change of Law impacting Low           Tenderer to accept liabilities
            on trust model benefit from           from withdrawal of specific
            NNDR.                                 model; Council to accept
                                                  liabilities if all trust models
Legal       Legality of management        Low     Proposal reviewed by the
            model.                                council’s external legal
                                                  advisors; no concerns. Trust
                                                  is already incorporated with
                                                  charitable objectives and has
                                                  approval from HMRC as to its
                                                  status for tax purposes.
Financial   Variation in final agreed     Low     Minimal bottom line change
            management fee from                   expected as likely
            Form of Tender through                improvements to, and
            contract negotiations.                worsening of, the financial
                                                  position will balance out over
                                                  the various negotiated
Financial   Job Evaluation implications Low/Med   The council would retain
            not yet able to be built into         liability for this cost; provision
            the contract                          has been made by the
            documentation.                        council for any arrears due.
                                                  Provision is made within the
                                                  contract for renegotiation of
                                                  the management fee if
                                                  enhanced staffing costs
                                                  result through JE.
                                                  The council would be liable
                                                  for this cost irrespective of a
                                                  decision to transfer the
                                                  management of the service.
Financial   Lead in time for updated      Low     TUPE list to be updated and
            actuary costs could delay             revised actuary figures to be
            finalising contract                   requested in November 2011
            management fee.                       to inform early January 2012
                                                  contract negotiations.
Financial   Council to retain operator    Med     Determine aspiration for
            asset liability for Meden             Meden SC in immediate and
            SC; budget provision                  short term to inform budget
            required subject to                   requirement.
            outcome of JUA                        Progress JUA discussions as
            discussions and contract              soon as possible to
            negotiations.                         determine potential to draw
                                                  down funding for outstanding
                                                  maintenance issues.
Financial   Presence of asbestos at       High    Determine aspiration for
            Meden SC; budget                      Meden SC in immediate and
            provision required.                   short term in order to

DRAFT_251011                                                                  21
                                                               MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

                                                            manage asbestos issue as
                                                            best able.


6.1. The provision of leisure opportunity contributes to the ‘revitalise’ priority of the
Corporate Plan through, for example, improving health by encouraging active
lifestyles, improving quality of life, and enabling community cohesion. Further, it will
contribute to the new Council priority from 2012/13 of supporting vulnerable people
to live independent and fulfilled lives through specific initiatives and pricing policies.
The provision of leisure opportunity also contributes to a number of priorities within
the Sustainable Community Strategy, notably participation in leisure and cultural
activity, health improvements, and in contributing to reductions in antisocial
behaviour through the provision of diversionary activity.

6.2. The proposal contributes to the corporate priority of effective leadership and
management by protecting a vulnerable discretionary service by way of contractual
commitment to continued service delivery and ensuring sustainable provision of cost
effective services.


(a)    Relevant Legislation

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 Part I, Subsection 19,
Recreational Facilities, gives a local authority the power to provide such recreational
facilities as it thinks fit, inside or outside its area, including the provision of indoor
facilities such as sports centres and swimming pools, and staff in connection with
any such facilities or premises.

Section 2(1) of the Local Government Act 2000 gives a local authority the power to
do anything which it considers is likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of
the economic, environmental or social well-being of its area. Section 2(4)
states that this power can include the power to, amongst other things, incur
expenditure and enter into arrangements or agreements with any person. The
vehicle for the authority to deliver this power is its sustainable community strategy.
Insofar as Mansfield is concerned, one of the priorities of the Sustainable Community
Strategy 2007-2015 is culture and tourism and the stated outcome is an improved
range of leisure, culture, and tourism activities based in the town centre.

(b)    Human Rights

None as a direct consequence of this report.

(c)    Equality and Diversity

Equality Impact Assessment completed on the proposal to transfer the management
of the service (Appendix 1); low impact determined.

DRAFT_251011                                                                           22
                                                            MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

(d)    Climate change and environmental sustainability

The proposal contributes significantly to the Council’s carbon reduction agenda and
the objectives of the Carbon Management Plan. The Preferred Partner has
committed to reducing the council’s CO2 emissions by at least 20 percent.

In addition a range of measures are included in the submission to minimise chemical
usage, recycle appropriate waste and recycle and reduce water consumption.

(e)    Crime and Disorder

The proposal includes a commitment to the reduction of anti social behaviour
through the delivery of appropriate activity programmes.

(f)    Budget /Resource

The management fee submitted by tender 1 would deliver significant financial
savings compared to the council’s affordability level for the duration of the contract.
The affordability level is the budget available to deliver the service excluding any
retained costs such as Service Level Agreements, officer costs for partnership
management, and contract variation budget provision.

Further financial benefits could result through the surplus share proposal and should
the operator qualify for discretionary rate relief

The final agreed management fee may be different to that submitted by the tenderer
as a consequence of contract negotiations. There are a number of negotiation issues
which may have either a positive or negative impact on the fee; it is expected that
these will balance out and that the final management fee will not be at significant
variance to that tendered.

The Council has targeted £300,000 revenue savings each year in the budget for
2012/13 onwards on the basis of a transfer of leisure services management.
Although it is unlikely that this level of saving will be achieved based on the tender,
the proposal will deliver significant savings which would otherwise have to be
identified elsewhere in the service or across the council.

Subject to resolution of the Joint Use Agreement with the county council and contract
negotiations, there may be a requirement for additional budgetary provision for the
retention by the council of the operator’s asset liabilities for Meden SC.

As the Job Evaluation implications for the service are not yet known, it has not been
able to factor into the contract requirements. The council would be liable for this cost
and provision has been made by the council for any arrears due. Should there be an
increase in staffing costs as a consequence of Job Evaluation provision is made
within the contract for renegotiation of the management fee. However, the council
would be liable for this cost irrespective of a decision to transfer the management of
the service.

DRAFT_251011                                                                        23
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL


(a)    Head of Paid Service –

The leisure services provided by Mansfield District Council employ 127 people
(67.71 FTE) in 148 posts; this represents 8% of the council’s workforce. In order to
maintain the level of service provision to which the Council aspires, including service
enhancements such as the Rebecca Adlington Swimming Centre, the service has
had to adapt, find efficiencies and generate new sources of income. If the Council
continues to aspire to deliver improved leisure choice and increased accessibility for
local residents it will need to make a step change in how the service is delivered.
This proposal will enable the Council to continue to provide the current level of
service. Existing employees will transfer under T.U.P.E. rules and the preferred
partner has signed up to the principles of the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters.

(b)    Monitoring Officer – No specific comments.

(c)    Section 151 Officer –

The 2012/2013 revenue budgets include an assumption that a saving of £300,000
will be made as a result of the market testing of the leisure service and facilities. An
assumption has been made that after 2012/2013 that an allocation of £150,000 from
this saving would be made into a capital reserve in order to meet the council's
liabilities in this respect. The 2012/2013 and future budgets do not include any
provision for Meden Sports Centre.

Having assessed the proposals identified in the variant bid from Tender 1 in
comparison to the budgets it shows that for 2012/2013 a saving of £12,538 would be
made compared to the £300,000 assumed. Should Meden SC not be included in the
contract a further saving of £160,657 would be achieved. A total of £173,105. There
is therefore a shortfall of either £287,462 or £126,895 for 2012/2013.

For future years, the budget assumes the allocation of £150,000 leaving the General
Fund requiring a saving of £150,000. The tender includes a provision for Meden
Sports Centre of £160,657 therefore in order to achieve the budget approved in
principle by Council on 26 January 2011 the amount included for Meden SC would
need to be removed accordingly. Should Meden Sports Centre be retained the
council would need to identify further savings from within its services to meet this

The council's element of capital has been taken into account and therefore the
£150,000 allocation to the reserve is no longer required.


9.1. Consultation was undertaken with key staff and stakeholders in the initial
options appraisal work undertaken in 2008.

9.2.   Since this time a number of forms of consultation have been undertaken.

DRAFT_251011                                                                         24
                                                               MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

9.3. The Portfolio Holder for the Environment has been fully briefed throughout the

9.4. Following referral of the draft decision report (Ref 10/06/ENV) to Select
Commission 1 in June 2010, it was requested that updates be brought to Select
Commission 1 as the project progressed; officers have attended SC1 meetings and
provided updates on 23 November 2010, 15 February 2011, 29 March 2011 and 14
June 2011.

9.5. Three employees briefing sessions were held in November 2010 to which all
employees were invited in order to explain the rationale for the decision to market
test the service, to explain the process and provide an opportunity for employees to
ask questions of service management and the project consultants. Union
representatives attended the session. The presentation and questions and answers
were posted on the intranet.

9.6. Regular Employee Updates have been circulated both during the initial
Options Appraisal and at key milestones during the market testing. These were sent
electronically to service and facility managers for display in staff areas; Trade Union
representatives were included in the circulation. Five Updates were issued in 2010
(23 February, 5 March, 13 April, 7 July, 10 November) and nine have been issued to
date in 2011 (12 January, 23 March, 17 May, 6 June, 11 July, 12 July, 24 August, 5
October and 7 October).

9.7. The market testing has been included as an agenda item at the leisure
managers’ team meetings (and at wider Leisure and Cultural Services team
meetings) to update on progress and provide an opportunity to ask questions.

9.8.   Updates have been provided in My Mansfield and The Insider.

9.9. More recently a user consultation was undertaken in order to explain to
leisure centre customers the rationale for the market testing and provide an
opportunity to ask questions about the proposals.

9.10. The consultation ‘Changing the way our leisure centres operate’ was primarily
targeted at regular hirers and casual customers but also aimed to identify any
potential adverse impact that a decision to transfer the management of the leisure
centres might have; this feedback then informed the Equality Impact Assessment.

9.11. Details of the proposal along with a number of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’
were posted in the leisure centres plus the consultation form was circulated directly
to regular hirers; in addition the consultation was posted on the council’s website.
Questions were able to be submitted in a number of ways; by completing the on line
form; by emailing the Interim Leisure Services Manager directly; or by completing a
paper copy for the leisure centre staff to return or by mailing it directly to the council.

9.12. Responses to questions were posted on the council’s web-site and displayed
at leisure centres.

9.13. The consultation initially ran from 1 August 2011 to 1 September 2011; this
was extended to 30 September 2011

DRAFT_251011                                                                           25
                                                             MANSFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL

9.14. 36 submissions were received (9 emails to the Interim Leisure Services
Manager; 9on line and 18 paper copies) with 79 questions of which 56 related to the
implications of the potential out sourcing project.

9.15. A number of themes emerged in the consultation relating gym membership,
price, the Ultimate Leisure Card, programming, staff, service and facilities, and
officers have responded based on the information available at this stage in the
process. It would not be possible to be definitive about some issues until the
completion of contract negotiations and award of the contract.

9.16. From an equalities perspective, very few adverse impacts were identified
through the consultation; key issues were about price, programming and the Ultimate
Leisure/Bonus Card. The contract documentation includes a range of controls to
remove or mitigate the potential for any adverse impact in relation to price and
programming. These include a number of protected core prices (which would be
determined by the council); a number of protected sessions (which require both the
hirer’s and the council’s approval if to be changed); and a general requirement for an
Equality Impact Assessment if programme changes are proposed. With respect to
the Ultimate Bonus Card, there is a contract requirement to continue
with the existing scheme or a comparable scheme to mitigate any impact on
vulnerable groups e.g. older people, people on income support, people on disability
living allowance. (See Appendix 1 for Equalities Impact Assessment/screening)


Draft contract
Draft lease
Invitation to Tender (redacted)

The above documents are available from Mandy Mellor; contact details below.

Report Author    -   Mandy Mellor
Designation      -   Leisure and Cultural Services Manager
Telephone        -   01623 463336
E-mail           -

Appendix 1:          Equality Impact Assessment screening

Exempt Item 1:       Annual Savings Compared to Council’s Affordability

DRAFT_251011                                                                        26

To top