Disputed minutes lead to new Bexhill leisure centre project call-in

On Wednesday (February 26), Rother District Council’s overview and scrutiny committee held a meeting calling-in a cabinet decision made on February 10, on the next steps of a project to build housing and a new leisure centre on the former Bexhill High School site. 

At that meeting, cabinet had been recommended to: allocate up to £5m to the project; begin design work on a reserved matters application; begin a compulsory purchase order process to acquire land at the site; negotiate an extension to the current leisure centre contract; and set up a steering group to guide the project’s next steps.

But according to draft minutes (which had been signed off by council leader Doug Oliver but not officially approved), cabinet only decided to set up the steering group with all other aspects of the project to be deferred until it could make its recommendations.

This saw concerns raised by overview and scrutiny chairman Cllr Paul Osborne, who felt delays to the project could lead to a significant increase in costs and have a knock on effects.

Cllr Osborne said he was particularly concerned about delays to the compulsory purchase order process and the contract extension, as delays to these elements could lead to further costs.

However, cabinet members present at the scrutiny committee meeting disputed the minutes, saying they believed both these elements had been approved as part of the meeting.

Among those present was Cllr Jonathan Vine-Hall, cabinet member for planning, who said: “All the members of the cabinet who are sitting here, are very clear that we agreed points one, two and four. 

“One being agreeing the extension of the leisure centre contract, the second being the beginning of the compulsory purchase order and four to establish the Bexhill Leisure Centre steering group. That was very clear. 

“The minutes may have been signed but actually the minutes aren’t authorised by the cabinet until we have the next meeting.”

Cllr Vine-Hall added that officers should go back and listen to the audio-recording of meeting to come to the truth of the matter.

The council’s own audio recording of the meeting does not appear to make the matter explicit one way or another, however.

In the recording, the item is introduced by council leader Doug Oliver who says there is a “revised recommendation” from cabinet. 

This revised recommendation was to set up a steering group with the project to be deferred until the steering group could report back to cabinet in April, Cllr Oliver said.

Cllr Oliver then says cabinet is “committed” to providing leisure and pool facilities in Bexhill and it was a case of “pausing” the project to allow the steering group to examine the details.

Shortly afterwards council chief executive Dr Anthony Leonard raises the issue of the contract extension, saying the council had received legal advice that the extension came up against council procurement rules.

Dr Leonard says that the decision to defer could have a “financial impact” on the council should an extension not be possible.

In response, Cllr Susan Prochak asks if that means the original recommendations would be left until after the steering group had met as a result of the amended cabinet decision.

Both Cllr Oliver and Cllr Vine-Hall say it would not, as recommendations one, two and four would be resolved in addition to the revised recommendation.

However, the resolution, which happened several minutes later, did not make this distinction clear, with Cllr Oliver saying he would “move the fact that was the revised recommendation”.

The draft minutes show only the revised recommendation was agreed.

While the recording was not played at the scrutiny meeting, committee members argued that the item should be referred back to cabinet as its decision was not clear.

Conservative group leader Cllr Carl Maynard said: “Let me be absolutely clear, this, if it goes ahead, will be the biggest project that this council will undertake for the considerable future. Therefore the correct information needs to be out there in the public domain.

“If, for whatever reason, there appears to be confusion over what the cabinet decision was then this committee should be to send it back to cabinet. It would be the right thing to do.”

Following further discussion, the committee resolved to refer the recommendations back to cabinet for a clear decision approving the compulsory purchase order process and the contract extension negotiations.

However it caveated this decision, so that it would not refer the matter back should the minutes be found to be incorrect and this decision had already been taken.