Agenda item

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer

The Assistant Director for Governance and Democracy introduced a report, which had been circulated in advance of the meeting, seeking the Committee’s views on the call-in of Cabinet’s decision on 19 February 2026 regarding the Carlton Active project. The Assistant Director for Leisure and Wellbeing outlined the rationale for the decision, stating that it had been made lawfully, based on the available evidence, and in the best interests of the Council.

The Chair invited public questions.

A Member of the public stated that the Equality impact Assessment (EQIA) had not fully assessed the impact on protected groups, particularly the three-year gap in provision for indoor bowls users and the lack of identified mitigation or consideration of alternative options. They questioned how Cabinet could have met its duties under the Equality Act without these assessments.

Officers responded that the EQIA had considered the impacts on the bowls community and that consultation had been undertaken to explore alternative interim provision.

Another member of the public raised concerns about the financial implications cited by Cabinet, including the estimated £2 million repair cost at Carlton Forum and the overall £29.9 million project cost for Carlton Active. They questioned whether this represented the best use of public money and asked whether a revised options appraisal, including a four-rink bowls facility, should be undertaken.

The Chair advised that funding issues were outside the scope of the call-in.

Officers then provided additional context on the condition of Carlton Forum, explaining that the 56-year-old building required ongoing major repairs and that failure of the drainage system could lead to closure, affecting over 4,000 regular leisure club users.

The Chair invited Member questions.

Members referred to point 4 of the call-in (reasonable alternatives), expressing concern that Cabinet may not have fully explored alternative options and should have paused its decision to do so after receiving a petition. The Chair reminded Members that the call-in related specifically to alternatives to indoor bowls provision.

Members queried the estimated £2-3 million cost of providing indoor bowls elsewhere and raised concerns about the Bowls Club being expected to vacate the premises immediately after their final booking.

Officers stated that a range of alternative locations had been explored but all had financial implications; the Council was also limited in its ability to subsidise a private Limited Company.

A motion was moved and seconded to refer the decision to full Council.

Members noted that the call-in process tested whether decisions were lawful and evidence-based, not whether Members agreed with Cabinet’s chosen direction. They acknowledged that Cabinet’s earlier decision in September 2025, based on consultation responses, had not been called in. Members clarified that the current decision was only to progress from RIBA stage two to stages three and four to produce detailed design and a full business case. They were advised that indoor bowls had been reconsidered during stage two, including three, four and six-rink options, but the inclusion significantly affected size, cost and viability. Discussions with the Bowls Club were ongoing.

Members recognised strong community feeling but emphasised the need to consider the whole borough’s leisure provision and long-term financial sustainability. They were not persuaded that the threshold for call-in had been met.

Some Members referred to points one and four of the call-in, stating that bowls offered social, cognitive and physical benefits distinct from gym or swimming activities, particularly for people living with dementia. They felt proposed alternative activities did not replicate those team-based benefits.

Members also raised concerns that consultation responses had not been accurately reflected in reports to Cabinet. They cited the community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) consultation, stating that incomplete scoring disadvantaged some Calverton projects and that earlier submissions had been overlooked. They noted that most respondents did not support Carlton Active. They also referenced feedback from the Leisure Strategy Transformation consultation, which they believed did not demonstrate clear public support for Carlton Active and had highlighted indoor bowls as a community priority, suggesting a lack of transparency.

A Member restated that for a call-in to succeed there must be evidence of absent consultation, unassessed impacts, ignored risks, or a lack of due regard. They felt the information provided by the Director for Leisure and Wellbeing demonstrated that options had been considered and that governance and risk management were clear. They therefore could not support the call-in.

Members voted on the motion to refer the decision to full Council. The motion was lost.

Members then voted on option 1 of the recommendations; to dismiss the call-in.

RESOLVED:

To dismiss the call-in.