Minutes:
The Chair stated that three public questions
had been received and these would be heard in the order they had
been submitted. He invited Mr Neil Woodbridge to read his
question.
Mr Woodbridge raised a point of clarification that the building was
named the Thameside Complex, rather than the Thameside Centre as
stated in the report. He added that the Thurrock International
Celebration of Culture (TICC) was a community interest company, and
this had been omitted from the report. Mr Woodbridge moved on and
read his question as follows:
“Our proposals indicated a partnership-based approach with
the Council, assuming that the Council would wish to not only share
risk but also reward to enable the asset to remain a public
asset. Will you still consider any
partnership based models that assume Council participation in your
call for new proposals, or is the Council seeking to completely
divest itself of the Thameside entirely with no stake in it at all
as a public asset?”
The Director of Place responded that the Council’s position
for the proposals of the Thameside had changed over the life of the
process, and highlighted that earlier in the process Mr Woodbridge
had received guidance that a partnership process would be
appropriate. He stated that he had met with Mr Woodbridge and
TLS/TICC at the end of 2022 to discuss the changes to the approach
and had expressed concern that the bid may require council support.
He explained that the bid needed to show a reduction in financial
dependence, and needed to consider the effects of the S114 notice.
He added that the proposed recommendation was to consult on a
cultural model, which could provide more time to amend proposals
and demonstrate that the TLS/TICC bid was financially sustainable.
The Director of Place confirmed that the report did not include a
decision to dispose of the Thameside building, and the team would
consider any revised proposals in light of the S114 notice and the
need for financial sustainability.
The Chair invited Mr Woodbridge to ask a supplementary question. Mr
Woodbridge highlighted the potential capital cost of £20m
which was listed in the original report, and included investment of
£300,000 in year one of a ten-year proposal. He stated that
many things on the Thameside Complex red list had already begun,
and felt that the building did not require as much investment as
the Council had listed. The Director of Place responded that the
council had considered investment over the lifecycle of a
thirty-year lease, and this had included some of the immediate
health and safety compliance work that had already been undertaken.
He felt that there would be differing opinions over the works that
would need to be carried out at the Thameside, but this would need
to include replacing lifts, vent maintenance, electrical
maintenance, and internal/external decoration.
The Chair invited Ms. Sam Byrne to read her question as
follows:
“TICC & TLS applied for a Community Asset Transfer; we
submitted our bid in March 2022. We
have asked several times in writing for the process and procedures
that the bid would follow and never received this
information.
We were promised the opportunity to give a
full business plan presentation with a Q&A session with a group
of officers and councillors, this never happened. Why may I ask 12
months after our bid was submitted were we informed, only in this
report that was published last week that our bid is not
sustainable?”
The Director of Place responded that he had first met
with TICC and TLS in August 2022 when he had recently joined the
Council, but the process had begun before this time. He stated that
he had met with TLS/TICC again in November 2022 to discuss finances
and what changes would need to be made to submit a revised bid. He
added that he had also explained the process of submission to
officers, the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and
Cabinet. The Director of Place added that he had then met with
TLS/TICC on 27 February 2023 to talk through the report being
presented to the Committee and explain the rationale behind the
recommendations. He felt he had communicated with TLS/TICC
throughout the process and had outlined the Council’s
intentions, but could not comment on the process which had been
undertaken before he had joined the Council. He stated that he was
happy to meet with TLS/TICC again to discuss ways forward.
The Chair invited Ms. Byrne to ask a supplementary question. Ms
Byrne stated that she had requested the formal process of bid
submission, as well as the Asset Transfer Policy, in writing, and
this had not yet been received. She felt that the report should not
be presented to Cabinet until the necessary processes had been
completed regarding the TLS/TICC bid. Ms Byrne stated that she had
been advised to reconsider the finances of the bid, but felt that
more information should be provided by the Council to support
TLS/TICC in revising their bid and updating their financials. The
Director of Place explained that the report would be presented to
Cabinet, but it would be their decision whether to accept the
recommendations.
The Chair invited Mr. Vic Gray to read his question as follows:
“Following the commissioners findings
that the council has been ‘unconsciously incompetent’,
has the handling of our bid not followed any council guidelines on
a prescribed process?”
The Director of Place stated that he could not comment on
processes that had been followed before he joined the Council, but
since he had started in his role he had followed the processes
outlined in the Asset Disposal Policy, which considered the
finances, socio-economic, and cultural value of an asset before
potential disposal. He explained that if the proposed disposal was
over £500,000 in value it had to be presented to the relevant
overview and scrutiny committee and Cabinet.
The Chair asked Mr. Gray if he wished to pose a supplementary
question. Mr Gray felt that negotiations at the beginning of the
process had been professionally managed, but felt that since July
2022 no due process had been followed, and questioned if Cabinet
could amend the asset disposal procedures. The Director of Place
responded that Cabinet Members would need to consider and update
the Asset Disposal Policy if they felt it was appropriate.
The Chair thanked the public speakers for their attendance,
engagement, and questions to the Committee. The Director of Place
introduced the report and explained that since the publication of
the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee report, the
recommendations of the Thameside Centre Cabinet report had been
amended. The Committee requested that hard copies of the updated
Cabinet recommendations be circulated, and the meeting be
adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 7.26pm.
The meeting reconvened at 7.36pm.
The Director of Place outlined the updated Cabinet recommendations,
which included separate recommendations for each of the proposed
consultations, as each consultation had to follow different
processes, for example the library consultation would be a
statutory consultation. He added that the recommendations also
sought delegated authority to the relevant directors to undertake
the consultations, and a final recommendation had been added which
noted the money within the capital programme for relocation.
The Director of Place moved on and explained that the Thameside
building was approximately 50 years old and required investment
over the next 30 years such as internal refurbishment and updated
electrical and mechanical systems. He stated that the building had
been declared surplus in July 2021, and following public engagement
and roundtable meetings with interested community members, a
further decision was made by Cabinet in January 2022 to continue
with discussions, and a business case that could see community
interest organisations take over the running of the building,
including related cultural services. He added that many references
were made during this time to the financial sustainability of the
business case. The Director of Place explained that internal and
external consultation had been carried out during this period, but
felt that further consultation was necessary before a decision
could be made. He outlined the five options for the Thameside which
had been listed in the report, and stated that options 1,4, and 5
were not being recommended as part of the report, and options 2 and
3 were being considered but were not currently financially
sustainable. The Director of Place
highlighted that option 2 currently stated that the building would
be transferred as part of a 25-year lease, but explained that this
was a 30-year lease, and this had been amended for the Cabinet
report.
The Director of Place highlighted the reasons for the
recommendations and stated that the TLS/TICC bid required
unconfirmed funding, and if this could not be found and running
costs were not met, the responsibility for the building would fall
back on the Council. He added that the Waltham International
College (WIC) bid had recently received an Ofsted inspection rating
of ‘inadequate’ and further work was needed on their
business case. He felt that the concerns regarding the TLS/TICC bid
could be resolved moving forward, but at this current stage, the
Council could not recommend this option. He explained that the
recommendation was to undertake detailed consultation regarding the
services within the Thameside, and this would also allow both
TLS/TICC and WIC time to further strengthen their business cases.
He added that the alternative option was to relocate the services
currently in the Thameside, and money could be found within the
capital programme for this.
Councillor Kent questioned what cultural and event provision within
the borough could look like moving forward, and if cultural
provision would be moved away from Grays. The Director of Place
explained that Grays was the primary centre for culture and events,
as the town contained a mix of retail, housing and leisure
facilities, but if other alternatives were presented then these
would not be excluded. He added that culture had a wide definition
and could range from street art to a new theatre building. He felt
that cultural arts and activities should look beyond the Thameside
building to a range of locations and events across Thurrock, and
his team were open to suggestions on how arts and culture should be
delivered. Councillor Kent queried who would carry out the proposed
consultations, how much these would cost and when they would begin.
He also asked if there would be three separate consultations on the
three different areas. The Director of Place explained that there
would be overlap between the three consultations as they would be
on the same digital platform, but they would be separate and would
contain different questions and discussions. He added that any
roundtable meetings between the Council and community interest
groups as part of the consultation would include a third-party
facilitator, as this had been shown to be best practice. He added
that there was no firm budget for the consultations, but the main
expenditure would be on the third-party facilitator, as the
consultations would be run by existing staff members. Councillor
Kent asked if the library relocation fell under statutory
consultations and regulations. The Director of Place confirmed that
it was a statutory duty and would have a separate
consultation.
Councillor Kent moved on and highlighted point 2.3 of the report.
He asked if the construction costs quoted included removing the
roof of the Thameside to be able to raise the height of the
building, and if the contingency figure of £2.2m listed in
previous reports was still accurate. The Director of Place
commented that no detail was included in the construction costs as
different building uses, specifications and operators would have
different construction needs and budgets. He felt that significant
investment was required to ensure the future sustainability of the
Thameside, but other organisations may have a different viewpoint.
He added that the team had considered recommendations from the Best
Value Inspection (BVI) regarding the level of contingency funding.
Councillor Kent highlighted points 3.9 and 3.10 of the report and
asked if staff would be made redundant, and if so, how many. The
Director of Place explained that the staffing implications
mentioned in the report could mean changing job roles or
relocation, as well as redundancy, but stated that no redundancies
were planned as a result of the report. He explained that once a
decision had been made regarding the future of the Thameside, a
formal consultation on staffing implications would be undertaken,
but this would separate from the consultations planned on the
cultural offer in Thurrock. Councillor Kent sought confirmation
that the date within the report for potential relocation of the
library to the Civic Offices of March 2024 remained feasible, and
if this included time for the consultation. The Director of Place
stated that this date remained feasible, but could be challenging
and depended on the outcome of consultation. He added that some
work had already been undertaken on the relocation of the library
following the decision in July 2021 to declare the Thameside as
surplus, but this had not been progressed due to the January 2022
Cabinet report. He added that preliminary plans for the library
relocation to the Civic Offices had been drawn up, and these would
form part of the consultation documents. Councillor Kent asked if
the Council could spend approximately £500,000 to £1mn
on the relocation of the library, given the S114 announcement in
December 2022. The Director of Place explained that the library was
a statutory requirement, but needed to demonstrate a good service
and best value under the S114 notice and a business case would be
required. He added that as a library was a statutory duty, he felt
it unlikely that any decision regarding libraries would not include
a central library in Grays. Councillor Kent queried how much money
the telecommunications equipment on the Thameside roof delivered.
The Director of Place stated that the equipment brought in
approximately £27,000 per year. Councillor Kent asked if the
current tenants of the building had rights. The Director of Place
commented that the tenants were protected under statute. He
explained that there were currently two tenants in the building,
one of whom was currently in the process of renegotiating their
lease. He added that there were other organisations within the
Thameside, but they hired rooms and therefore were not classed as
tenants and did not have the same protections.
Councillor Arnold queried if the Council would be liable for
ongoing costs of the theatre if they did nothing. The Director of
Place confirmed that the Council would be liable, as well as being
liable for planned maintenance and the required investment. He
stated that if the Council leased the building but retained
occupation, the Council could introduce service charges and sinking
funds, but it would be the tenant’s responsibility to
maintain the building. Councillor Arnold asked if the team had
undertaken a comparative exercise to determine the cost and
availability of other office spaces in Grays. The Director of Place
explained that the team had undertaken an assessment of office
space value in Grays, although the values ranged significantly
based on specification, facilities, and area. Councillor Thandi
questioned if a break clause could be included if the building was
leased out. The Director of Place explained that this could be
included, but stated that the team would be unable to begin a lease
without a financially viable business plan being put in place.
Councillor Thandi asked if the complex would remain open whilst the
consultations were running. The Director of Place stated that the
Thameside would remain open as usual, and bookings had been
accepted until the summer of 2023. He stated that no changes would
be implemented until a decision had been made.
Councillor Holloway expressed her concern that the updated Cabinet
recommendations had not been circulated to the Committee in hard
copy before the meeting. She also sought reassurance that the
consultations would be thorough, and not simply a tick box
exercise. She felt that Grays library was an important facility for
those in the area, as it held sessions for a variety of people such
as those with disabilities, community groups, and children who were
home-schooled, as well as lending books. She added that the theatre
helped inspire children and the museum helped encourage learning in
the borough, and asked if the cultural value of the Thameside
building had been considered. The Director of Place confirmed that
there was no proposal to close or downsize the library, and the
team were working hard to maintain and improve the museum. He
stated that the Council had to consider the financial
sustainability of the Thameside building, but there remained an
opportunity to work with the community interest groups on their
bids.
Councillor Carter thanked the members of the public for their
questions. He asked if a question-and-answer session could form
part of the consultation. He wanted to see engagement continue with
TLS/TICC and WIC on their proposals. Councillor Kent felt concerned
that the arts in Thurrock were not being invested in, and stated
that the borough needed to have a Cultural Strategy in place. He
felt that Thurrock needed a theatre building, but felt that the
report leant towards the option of closing the building. He stated
that it would be good to see consultation on culture and arts in
the borough, but sought reassurance that that would include the
Thameside.
Members agreed to a recorded vote on each recommendation, including
the individual Cabinet recommendations.
RESOLVED: That the Committee:
1. Noted the options considered for the future of the Thameside
building and the analysis of those options set out in the
report.
This recommendation was agreed by all Committee
Members.
2. Commented on the following recommendations for the future of
the Thameside Centre that will be considered by Cabinet at their
meeting on 15 March 2023:
1.1
Cabinet notes the bid from Thurrock Lifestyle Solutions/Thurrock
International Celebration of Culture and Waltham International
College and thanks them for their efforts to try and offer a
financially sustainable alternative for the future of the
building.
All Committee Members agreed with the recommendation.
1.2 Cabinet notes the significant concerns regarding both
proposals and that neither is recommended as a financially
sustainable alternative for the future of the building.
Committee Members sought to amend the recommendation as
below:
1.2 Cabinet notes the significant concerns regarding both
proposals and that neither is recommended, in its current form, as
a financially sustainable alternative for the future of building.
Cabinet agrees that negotiations and discussions will continue with
TLS/TICC to try and facilitate a financially sustainable bid.
All Committee Members agreed with the amended
recommendation.
1.3 Cabinet authorises the Director of Place to undertake
consultation on alternative options for the delivery of cultural
activities and events in Grays.
Committee Members sought to amend the recommendation as
below:
1.3 Cabinet authorises the Director of Place to undertake
consultation on all options for the delivery of cultural activities
and events in Grays and the wider borough.
All Committee Members agreed with the amended
recommendation.
1.4 Cabinet authorises the Corporate Director of Adults, Housing
and Health to undertake consultation on the relocation of the
library from the Thameside Building to the Civic Offices.
FOR: 0
AGAINST: 3 (Councillors Massey, Holloway and Kent)
ABSTAIN: 3 (Councillors Thandi, Arnold and Carter)
As the Chair had the casting vote, this recommendation was not
agreed.
Committee Members sought to amend the recommendation as
below:
1.4 Cabinet authorises the Corporate Director of Adults,
Housing and Health to undertake consultation on the relocation of
the library from the Thameside Building to the Civic Offices. A
report on this recommendation to be brought back to the Corporate
Overview and Scrutiny Committee on completion of the
consultation.
FOR: 3 (Councillors Thandi, Arnold and Carter)
AGAINST: 3 (Councillors Massey, Holloway and Kent)
ABSTAIN: 0
As the Chair had the casting vote, this recommendation was not
agreed.
1.5 Cabinet authorises the Director of Place to undertake
consultation on the relocation of the museum from the Thameside
Building to the Civic Offices with a view to achieving Accredited
Museum status.
The Committee sought to amend the recommendation as
below:
1.5 Cabinet authorises the Director of Place to undertake
consultation on the future of the museum with a view to achieving
Accredited Museum status. A report on this recommendation to be
brought back to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee on
completion of the consultation.
FOR: 3 (Councillors Thandi, Arnold and Carter)
AGAINST: 3 (Councillors Massey, Holloway and Kent)
ABSTAIN: 0
As the Chair had the casting vote, this recommendation was not
agreed.
1.6 Cabinet notes the allocation of £1.2million in the
Capital Programme agreed at Council on 1st March 2023,
funded from asset sales, for the relocation of the library and
museum.
All Committee Members agreed with the
recommendation.
The Director of
Place left the meeting at 9.08pm.
Supporting documents: