| OSC.440 | The Chair, Councillor Hankey, reported that the meeting had been convened following receipt of a Call-In Notice from Councillors Walker, Hankey and Wiseman. The Notice related to the Cabinet decision taken on 10 October 2012 in respect of Destination Management as set out below:
1. That approval be given to consult on proposals about how the council can support destination management in the future. The consultation will invite comments from stakeholders on the proposals for a new Destination Management function for the council.
2. That it be noted that a final report, noting the comments and suggestions as a result of the consultation exercise, will be submitted in due course for approval. At that time employees will be fully consulted in accordance with the agreed procedures in respect of any implications related to their employment conditions.”
The reasons for the Call-In of the decision were set out within the Notice as follows:
“This proposal removes future personal interaction between the Tourism staff and the general public - both local and visiting. We therefore seek more in depth study by the Scrutiny Committee for the following reasons:
a) More consideration needs to be given to the proposal to REPLACE the 2.5 staff on basic grade who are the experienced “public face” for visitors to Bury with unseen office based senior staff and untried technology. The staffing issues are not set out in detail (eg salaries, job specs, line management…)
b) More thought needs to be given to costs, including some fresh initiatives, such as construction of a new and complex Web Site, the use of mobile information units and the advertising for and training and oversight of volunteer “Ambassadors”, which are not costed.
c) Further consideration of the effect on the Market, a major visitor attraction which is strengthened by many coaches being met and welcomed. Reputational costs need to be included in any business planning.
d) An in depth study of the potential effect on the Fusilier Museum by losing the Tourist Information Centre should be presented, as well as the possible effects on any other partners, such as ELR, business organisations and retail.
e) There is a need for more comparative costings for the planned changes.
f) A need to question whether this (relatively) limited funding cut will damage the future achievement of Bury’s No 3 Priority in its Economic Strategy and vision “To be a popular visitor destination”.
g) To consider any alternative economies are feasible (eg Sunday opening, membership of outside bodies.)
h) There should be an opportunity for Scrutiny Committee members to visit the Tourist Information Centre and discuss with front line staff their work which may disappear if the proposal continues to progress in its present form.
The report on which the decision was taken, from the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism, was submitted outlining the Council’s co-ordinating and enabling role in Destination Management for the borough. The report set out proposals for new arrangements to support this area of work and requested approval to the proposals for consultation with stakeholders.
Questions and comments were invited from Members of the Committee and the public present at the meeting and the following issues were raised:
• In response to a question from the Chair concerning the £89k saving, the Cabinet Member explained that the figure was a set amount within a specific area of the wider Plan for Change.
• The Chair, Councillor Hankey, stressed the importance of the input of local business groups in the development of any proposals.
• In response to a question relating to electronic access to information, the Cabinet Member explained that the Council would look at making the dedicated website accessible and available in public buildings throughout the borough. It was also confirmed that public access points would be made available.
• With regard to the issue of “Ambassadors” it was confirmed that these people would be volunteers. The Cabinet Member reported that £15k per annum, re-allocated from the current budget, had been set aside to support training.
• Councillor Wiseman highlighted the fact that not all were computer literate and expressed concerns about a move away from a person focussed service.
• In response to a question concerning the level of business support for local business groups, the Cabinet Member explained that there was currently an £11k budget for this but this would look to be increased following further consultations with the business groups. It was explained that destination management staff would still co-ordinate events but there was need for support from elsewhere.
• Councillors Carter and Heneghan question the reasons for the call-in and stated that it had resulted in delaying a full consultation on all the proposals with relevant stakeholders.
• Sarah Wilkins, representing Ramsbottom Business Group, highlighted the need for support from the Council and explained that there was only a core of volunteers from the business community who themselves had limited time to commit. The Cabinet Member explained that it may be possible to involve the Township Managers and wider voluntary groups from within the borough.
• In response to a question from Ralph Warrington relating to extra monies that would be needed for development of a website and training of Ambassadors, the Cabinet Member explained that any additional costs would be met from a re-allocation of the budget.
• Helen Stewart, representing Whitefield Business Group, stressed the need for a structure of support to be in place to co-ordinate and manage events and initiatives involving volunteers.
• Concerns were raised over the quality of potential Ambassadors and the difficulties of making volunteering and attractive proposition.
• Helen Field, from the Fusiliers Museum, stressed the importance of continuing to support local tourism in spite of the difficult financial climate and questioned the value for money aspect of being affiliated to Visit Manchester. The Executive Director of Environment and Development Services highlighted that being a part of Visit Manchester did enable the Council to access other forms of grant funding streams.
• Helen Field highlighted the need to evaluate the success of any other Council’s using Ambassadors before the Tourist Information Centre is potentially lost.
|