To receive a presentation from representatives of GLL on their work operating leisure centres for the Council.
Minutes:
The Committee received a presentation from representatives of GLL (Greenwich Leisure Limited) on their work operating leisure centres for the Council. The presentation detailed leisure centre activity levels and engagement activities, along with GLL’s work as a social enterprise in the borough, working with the Council.
Leisure centre user levels were identified to have dropped somewhat during 2017, which was attributed to increased competition from low-cost gym providers, but was remarked to be improving again following recent improvements and the Donnyngs leisure centre. Attention was drawn to GLL’s efforts to reach out to all residents in an inclusive manner.
A number of community support and engagement activities were identified, including the GLL Sport Foundation, the Better Club Games programme, work with the Council’s community development team, work with refugee integration activities, and support of a GP referral scheme (Healthwise) in the borough (including case studies). The presentation also noted GLL’s work to evaluate the social value provided by their activities, and their data driven approach to planning work.
There were a number of questions and comments on the presentation, relating the following topics, which were responded to by the GLL representatives, and Cllr Ashford, Portfolio Holder for Community Wellbeing:
· Employee Remuneration. It was identified that as a charitable social enterprise owned by its staff and society members, GLL’s staff salaries were set by the elected worker board, and were relatively flat compared to other comparably sized entities.
· Youth Engagement. A number of questions were raised by committee members regarding GLL’s work in engaging young people with its services, and the offer available to them. It was identified that whilst GLL sought to offer good value for money, pricing could be a factor for some individuals. It was identified that student memberships were available, and that the topic would be considered to see if any other steps could be taken. Attention was drawn to the importance of providing activity options to appeal to all genders, providing support for areas of high deprivation, and the potential mental health benefits thereof. It was identified that user levels for children were not necessarily tracked independently to parents, and that it would be considered if this could be improved to help inform engagement work. It was noted that GLL hadn’t historically operated large scale advertising campaigns, but maintained a social media presence, worked with local schools, and participated in a number of local events where information on leisure facilities was available for young people and parents.
· Pricing of Facilities. Members were advised that work to standardise pricing at leisure centres across the borough had now completed, and that this had been undertaken by increases in some respects and price freezes in others. It was identified that prices in the borough were broadly similar to others in the area outside of London. It was identified that GLL facilities didn’t compete directly with low-cost gyms on price, but sought to offer higher quality service and facilities, along with a wider range of options.
· Social Value Comparisons. It was identified that the social value calculator had only been used for one year to date, but that it would be available in future years as a comparative tool.
· The GP Referral Scheme. It was noted that the scheme had originally been funded by Surrey County Council, but that it was moving towards being entirely funded by GLL, following cuts to funding by Surrey. It was identified that subsidised memberships were available, but that individuals referred to the 12 week activity programme would need to be re-referred to access the programme again following its completion.
· Opening Schedules and Cancellations. Members were advised that centres sough to clearly publicise opening schedules around Christmas on-site, and online, but that it recognised that there remained the possibility for some individuals to miss this information. It was identified that there had been no reduction in opening hours around the period. Members were advised that when individuals leading classes at the leisure centres were unable to attend at short notice, procedures were in place to source replacements to support the classes wherever practical. It was noted that unfortunately some classes with more specialist operators had limited available alternatives in the event of the scheduled individual being forced to cancel.
· Site Maintenance. It was identified that some sites used contract cleaning services, and others were cleaned directly by GLL employees. Regarding a query about cleanliness at the Horley site, it was confirmed that the centre had previously used a contract cleaning service, but that it had now moved to being cleaned directly by GLL staff members. It was noted that there had been a temporary issue with the temperature of the small pool at Horley when automated systems were unavailable, but that pool temperatures were checked on a regular basis throughout the day, and checked by an external contractor.
· Refurbishment Programme. It was confirmed that the Donnyngs site had been selected for the most recent refurbishment due to there having been the longest period since its equipment was renewed.
· Cross-Borough Funding. It was confirmed that leisure centres were not subsidised between different boroughs.
· Positive Experiences. A number of Members noted positive experiences they had had with GLL services.
The Committee thanked the GLL representatives for the presentation.
RESOLVED that the presentation from GLL be noted.