Issue - meetings

The following decision taken on 4 July 2016 by Cabinet has been called in:

Investment in Watford’s Adventure Playgrounds

The reason for call-in, signed by 3 Members, is as follows –

“A lack of consultation for residents and users of the Adventure playgrounds and other options and alternatives.”

The following documents are attached –

(a)    Report of the Head of Community and Customer Services

(b)    Appendix A to the report (Overview of the designs for the new Adventure Playgrounds)

(c)     Appendix B to the report (Outline timetable)

(d)    Appendix C to the report (Examples of some of the specific equipment proposed)

(e)    Extract of the minutes of Cabinet on 4 July 2016

(f)     Proforma requesting the call-in of the decision signed by Councillors Bell, Joynes and Mills

(g)     Call-in procedures to be followed

The Cabinet decision taken on 4 July 2016, minute reference 18, regarding ‘Investment in Watford’s Adventure Playgrounds’ had been called in by Councillors Bell, Joynes and Mills.  The reason for the call-in had been included in the agenda.  The scrutiny committee had received a copy of the report to Cabinet, the minutes from Cabinet’s meeting on 4 July, the completed call-in request and the call-in procedures.

Following a brief introduction by the Chair, Councillor Dhindsa, the Legal and Democratic Section Head was asked to explain the role of the committee.

The Legal and Democratic Section Head explained about call-in and the scrutiny committee’s role in considering the call-in request.  The procedures were included with the agenda.  He reminded members that there were two possible decisions that could be made.  The first would be to ratify Cabinet’s original decision and the other was to refer the decision back to Cabinet giving reasons why Cabinet should re-consider its decision. 

Councillor Bell was invited to present his reasons for calling in Cabinet’s decision.

Councillor Bell quoted the original reason for calling in the decision.  There had been a lack of consultation and lack of alternative options put forward by the Mayor and her Cabinet.  The playgrounds had a unique history and had experienced and trusted staff.  The loss of these playgrounds would destroy unique cultural safe areas within the town.  He referred to the savings that had been included in the budget in January, but the details had not been revealed until the report to Cabinet in July.

Councillor Bell asked why there had been no consultation in the months leading up to the report to Cabinet.  He questioned that if Cabinet strongly felt the supervised playgrounds had to go why they had not spoken to children, parents and staff, including their union representatives to find a consensual way forward.  He referred to the 2010 play review, which was six years old.  He asked why there had been no effort in using staff and parents to look at other councils and their play services.

Councillor Bell said that the Mayor had commented about getting more families using playgrounds and that removing the current provision would encourage more families to access the sites.  The new proposal may create a more ‘open’ facility, but it would mean the loss of the supervision, which was trusted by parents.

Councillor Bell commented that it would be said that children’s services and play were not the council’s responsibility.  The Government and county council’s policy was early intervention.  He suggested the council could have used the expertise of the county’s children’s services and other authorities to see how a plan could be put together to keep these unique facilities open.  He said that cutting these services could lead to vulnerable families being disadvantaged.

Councillor Bell finished by saying that he would speak about financial matters later.  He advised that there were three people he had invited to speak about the matter.

The Chair invited Councillors Joynes and Mills to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17

Report of Head of Community and Customer Services