----Original message----
From : This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Date : 24/02/2019 - 23:41 (GMT)
Subject : RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: State of Men's Gym Changing area in Eastwood Park gym

Staff will clean/dust ceiling tiles when necessary on their routine checks at regular intervals.

There are daily/weekly cleaning plans which include dusting ceiling tiles in changing areas on a deep weekly clean.

This is an area that the venue assistants have only just started to include in their cleaning routine, to assist the gym staff who are responsible for this area, and it is expected that a marked improvement in cleanliness will be seen

Best regards,
Colm Merrick (Cllr).

----Original message----
Date : 25/02/2019 - 16:44 (GMT)
To : This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Subject : RE: State of Men's Gym Changing area in Eastwood Park gym

Hi Colm

Thanks for this but........

See attached photo.

It was not the cleanliness of the ceiling tiles that was my main concern.

It was the ceiling grills.......above toilet, sink, showers and in main area and how they will now be kept clean. They would appear to be air vents and at least one covers an air conditioning vent?

I would say that dust and grime etc is trapped underneath these grills, and the grills themselves need to be removed and regularly deep cleaned if you want to see an improvement in cleanliness.

Can you confirm that 'clean/dust ceiling tiles' and 'dusting ceiling tiles in changing areas on a deep weekly clean.' includes the regular deep cleaning of these grills/vents.

Thanks

Just to document the full story -

Extract from -

MINUTE of EAST RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL
Minute of Meeting held at 7.00pm in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Giffnock, on 19 December 2018.

QUESTIONS TO CONVENERS
739.
In according with Standing Order 24, the following questions were submitted from Councillor Swift to Councillor Buchanan, Leader of the Council.

Question 1
“Having consulted with an academic, I have been advised in considerable detail and against a range of criteria, which the consultation failed and the bottom line is that the Council’s consultation was quite blatantly biased.

Can the Leader of the Council please advise why the Council constructed a biased consultation?”

In reply, Councillor Buchanan explained that the Council had discussed many aspects of the consultation and he did not share Councillor Swift’s opinion that it was biased.

Furthermore,referring to previous concerns that had been expressed about compliance with data protection requirements during the consultation, notification had been received from the Information Commissioner confirming that the Council had been compliant with all data protection obligations during the consultation exercise.

Concluding his remarks, he re-iterated that the consultation was not biased.

Councillor Swift then outlined five issues in relation to the consultation.

These were noted as the following:-
(i)The Council created a biased survey;
(ii)The Council disseminated a biased survey;
(iii)The Council had personate information from the public;
(iv)The Council reported the consultation results in a slanted way; and
(v)The Council used a survey with questionable methodology to highlight which sites should be prioritised.

In view of the foregoing, he asked Councillor Buchanan whether he shared his view that efforts were needed to restore faith in the Council and questioned whether Councillor Buchanan and the Chief Executive were the right people to lead the Council.

In response, Councillor Buchanan stated that he rejected Councillor Swift’s comments in the course of which he emphasised that the Council had excellent staff and the Council was held in high regard.

He expressed concern about the comments that Councillor Swift had made and the points he was trying to make simply because he did not like the outcome of the consultation which neither biased nor flawed.

He stated that the results of the consultation would be used when a decision required to be made in the future.

The Council noted the position.

671
Question 2
“I have been waiting now since my request on 31stOctober for a detailed methodology into the report that recommended Shawwood as 1st choice narrowly nudging Broompark into second place as the preferred site for a new Eastwood Leisure Centre.

Some of the findings were at best counter intuitive and at worst appeared ridiculous to me.

Can the Leader of the Council please advise why we would spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on reports from consultants that have in my and others’ opinions highly dubious findings and those same consultants will not share their methodology, so we can understand how they arrived at their questionable findings?”

In reply, Councillor Buchanan stated that consultants were used on a number of occasions for a variety of services that the Council provided.

However, they did not make decisions.

He stated that in relation to the methodology used by Turner and Townsend, a well-known and respected firm, Councillor Swift had been provided with information on this matter.

Councillor Swift stated that he had been given information but not an answer.

He stated that there were 5 domains that were evaluated within this and within them there were sub-domains although there were no detailed criteria that explained the values attributed or attached to these sub-domains.

He stated that the Council had been given a numerical answer to a subjective question and that there was no decent methodology that could be understood.

He enquired that in view of the foregoing whether Councillor Buchanan had any concerns with the report that had been prepared by Turner and Townsend.

In reply, Councillor Buchanan advised that he had no concerns with the report and that the information would be considered in the future prior to a decision being made.

The Council noted the position.

You can read the full Council Minutes here -

www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23873&p=0

A few comments on below minutes -

‘Reference was made to related Freedom of Information requests to be responded to and how this resulted in deflecting some resources from the task under discussion.’

- FOI requests blamed for Director of Environment’s shortcomings


‘In response, the Director of Environment explained that the exercise required a considerable input in terms of resource, clarified that he was leading this work himself rather than another member of his senior management team, and referred to on-going discussions that were well under way between him and a particular provider through Hub West with a view to a contract being awarded.’

- Director of Environment doesn’t trust their senior management team?

- Turner & Townsend praised then dumped !

- Particular provider would appear to be Peter Brett Associates who were first contacted on/about 27 April 2018


Again, to document the ‘Official’ full story -

Extract from -
MINUTE of AUDIT & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Minute of Meeting held at 2.00pm in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Giffnock on 24January 2019.


ACCOMMODATION RELATED CONSULTANCY
763.
Under reference to the Minute of the meeting of 22 November 2018 (Page 633, Item 698 refers), when it had been agreed that the Director of Environment be asked to attend a future meeting to enable issues in relation to consultancy reports commissioned and prepared on accommodation issues to be raised with

him, specifically in relation to the Leisure Centre

but also any other issues regarding such reports raised by members of the committee, Councillor Miller welcomed the Director of Environmentto the meeting and invited him to respond to specific issues raised by Members.

It was clarified that questions on issues Members had indicated they intended to explore had been issued to him in advance to enable him to prepare.

Prior to questions being posed to him, the Director of Environment made some preliminary comments, referring to the extent to which information on the issue, particularly the Leisure Centre, was already available such as through Minutes of recent Council meetings and related reports and questions raised.

He highlighted that the outcome of the recent public consultation exercise on future leisure provision within the Eastwood area had been debated extensively at the Council meeting in September 2018 when it had been noted that a comprehensive report on the Feasibility and Full Business Case for a leisure and recreational facility and associated issues, to include the possibility of a new-build facility in Eastwood Park, would be submitted to the Council in due course.

Whilst commenting further the Director of Environment also referred to discussions at the subsequent Council meeting on 31 October 2018 on an accommodation strategy to be developed for approval during 2019/20 and a report on future work plans for the development of a leisure centre to serve the Eastwood area.

He clarified that it had been noted then that he would undertake the master planning of Eastwood Park, including specifically exploring the feasibility of a new-build leisure centre within the Park based upon the latest information on Council property options for schools and office accommodation;and that he would submit a further report to the Council with an options appraisal for the future provision of leisure facilities in the Eastwood area once this work had been completed.


The Director of Environment also referred to two related questions posed to the Leader of the Council at the meeting of the Council in December2018, both of which had been responded to.

He stated that,with these caveats,he was happy to reply to any questions Members wished to raise, but that he might need to come back to them later regarding some issues depending on what was raised.

Referring to the public consultation on the future provision of leisure facilities in the Eastwood area, Councillor Swift outlined why he considered the extent of the description of Option 4 and the particular way in which it had been presented, compared to other options, to be substantially biased, this point having not been accepted by the Leader of the Council.

Amongst other things, he reported that an expert he had spoken to had voiced concerns about the approach adopted.

He also expressed the view that a booklet made available to those consulted had been presented in such a way as to persuade respondents to favour Option 4 but had not made it clear that this was the intention.

Councillor Swift asked the Director of Environment if he agreed that if a particular outcome was preferred by officers within a consultation, the promotion of that option should be made clear, adding that he did not mind a biased approach provided it was stated that an option was a preferred one.

The Director of Environment stated that none of the options suggested had been preferred including by officers, stressing that his role was to advise the Council and implement decisions it took.

Referring to the booklet, he acknowledged that the way the 4 options had been presented varied.

He clarified that it had been decided that the best way to present Options 1 and 2 had been to use existing photographs; that as Option 3 concerned refurbishment, using photographs of the nearest example of The Foundry had been considered appropriate; and that because Option 4 offered the largest facility, there were more opportunities attached to that option compared to the others.

Whilst commenting further, the Director of Environment explained that the main issue regarding a new-build facility was identifying a suitable site which had been highlighted in the document, acknowledging the existence of opportunity costs issues associated with that option such as linked to travel and using green space.

The Director of Environment also referred to confusion that he felt existed, clarifying that the exercise was not meant to have been about sites, in respect of which he referred to the terms of a report submitted to the Cabinet dated December 2017on the condition of Eastwood Park Leisure Centre, Eastwood Theatre and Carmichael Hall and which outlined options for further consideration with regard to future leisure provision and the Eastwood Park campus more generally.

He clarified that, in response to a request from Elected Members, reference to sites had been included, but that he had held concerns that this approach would turn the exercise into one about that issue.

He also referred to planning related issues that needed to be considered about site options.

The Director of Environment stated that he was unable to comment on the views of the expert whom Councillor Swift had referred to as he neither knew the person nor had seen the comments made by them.

Councillor Grant emphasised that her concern was not about the past but for the future, referring to changing parameters such as the fact that a further extension to St Ninian’s High School was no longer being considered in favour of a new school being built.

She expressed hope that Eastwood Park would be given serious consideration as the location for the Centre, commenting that local people needed a facility in the Park and that the Park was an obvious site now.

The Director of Environment confirmed that part of his remit was to answer questions, but also referred to his role to guide Elected Members in appropriate directions.

He acknowledged that parameters about projects could change such as the position on St Ninian’s High School in this case, and explained that he had been concerned that an extension to the School,had it been needed in the Park,could have been compromised by a new facility of the type under discussion.

He confirmed that he was looking at what could be done in the Park but also potential obstacles, such as if the existing Centre could remain open during the construction of such a new-build facility.

Reference was made to related Freedom of Information requests to be responded to and how this resulted in deflecting some resources from the task under discussion.

In response to Councillor Miller, the Director of Environment clarified that the Member/Officer Working Group linked to the Local Development Plan would be convened as soon as possible, referring to related background research under way such as on school pupil projections.

He said that the Group would be convened when sufficient information had been gathered and that it was likely that a few meetings would be convened prior to a report being submitted to the Council.

Having referred to the allegation of bias, Provost Fletcher asked about the selection of the consultant used by the Council, commenting that he understood the organisation to have expertise which it deployed in many countries.

The Director of Environment referred to the tender issued for the work, related bids for the contract and the need to ensure that the organisation appointed had the required skill base.

Whilst commenting on the careful selection of Turner and Townsend, the Director of Environment referred to their experience including on an international basis, clarified that they had been used for work carried out in 2014, and that it had made sense to use them again.

Provost Fletcher welcomed the explanation provided and reassurance given, even if some had not liked the outcome of their work.

Whilst expressing a personal and political preference for any new facility being in the Park, he highlighted the need to be open minded to the possibility of a better option being suggested.

He argued in favour of a solution that was good not only for the Council but also the local community.

Having stressed that he had considered the consultation to be biased, rather than the consultants used, Councillor Swift expressed concern regarding the lack of a scoring mechanism proscribed for sub-domains which would have enabled the analysis provided to be explained, understood and checked rather than a subjective approach having been adopted in his view.

Having stated that he would welcome the site of any new facility to be within Eastwood Park, he sought an update on progress on the preparation of the masterplan for the Park, including the current position, which organisations had approached the authority to assist with it, and when the Plan would be ready.

In response, the Director of Environment explained that the exercise required a considerable input in terms of resource, clarified that he was leading this work himself rather than another member of his senior management team, and referred to on-going discussions that were well under way between him and a particular provider through Hub West with a view to a contract being awarded.

He acknowledged that Elected Members were seeking the submission of a report to the Council on the outcome of the work as soon as possible, estimating when it might be possible to do so later in the year subject to sufficient progress being made.

Referring to local interest in the issue, Provost Fletcher commented that it would be preferable if a report could be submitted as soon as possible, whilst acknowledging the complexity of the matter.

The committee, having heard Councillor Miller thank the Director of Environment for attending, noted the position and clarification provided.


You can read the full Council Minutes here -

www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23873&p=0

In reply to query sent (11/03/2019) to Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA) -

'Would appreciate if you will give details (including start dates and end dates) of the current work being carried out for East Renfrewshire Council regarding 'Master Planning of Eastwood Park' and 'the feasibility of a new build leisure centre within Eastwood Park.

Your Ralston Mackenzie, Senior Associate from your Glasgow Office has been in correspondence with Andy Cahill East Renfrewshire Council. '


Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA) replied -

'Further to your enquiry through our website, please see a response below:

Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA) has been commissioned by East Renfrewshire Council (via Hub West) to consider a Visioning & Masterplanning exercise for Eastwood Park.

This commission is being led by PBA with support from Stallan Brand Architects.

The work (which is ongoing) is being managed from our Glasgow office and is anticipated as being a 12 – 16 week programme.'

------ Original Message ------
From: "Mahon, Gerry" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Cc: "Geddes, Craig" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; "Maxwell, Graeme" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Sent: Monday, 18 Mar, 2019 At 15:08
Subject: freedom of information review - Eastwood Park masterplan

I refer to the above and to your request for review formally noted as having been received on 18 February 2019.

I appreciate that you believe the request to have been earlier communicated to the Council (i.e. 17th January) but, as intimated by Mr Geddes, and substantiated by examination of the council's IT systems, it does not appear to have been received at that date.

Having now had the content of your communication of 17th January forwarded to me, I have based your review request upon its terms.

As you are aware, I have responsibility within the Council for dealing with reviews under both the Freedom of Information and Environmental Information regimes and can advise that I have now concluded consideration of this case.

In the first instance I would highlight that I consider this information as environmental in nature.

It clearly relates to the assessment and design of proposals regarding both built and natural environment in a specific area.

On that basis, I consider the application to fall within the exemption set out in section 39 (2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and would instead consider its terms in the context of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

Turning to the specific requests made:

You seek information as to progress so far – in terms of regulation 5, the Council is obliged to provide information held rather than compile an update in specific response to your request.

Insofar as there was no consolidated account of progress provided to you I am of the view that this does not suggest any failure on the part of the department to fulfil its obligations under the regulations.

As regards master planning, you have been supplied with communications between the Director of Environment and PBA in this regard such as existed at the time of your request.

Following further search I am unable to locate any further communications relative to this issue held at that time.

I am however aware that since your request a further revised project plan and programme has been developed and this is attached.

This documentation is supplied via Hubwest Scotland, of which the Council is a shareholder and who are conducting the appointment process on the Council’s behalf.

Given the above role of Hubwest, there is no Council tender for this work.

Initial preliminary discussion with the contractor proceeded further to the ability of the Council as a shareholder in Hubwest Scotland to direct award via their strategic services agreement so no separate tender exercise was conducted internally.

There is accordingly no recorded information regarding the proposal to go to tender given this expected route to appointment.

At the time of your request no formal contract award had in any event been made by the Council.

As regards cost of the work the rates proposed by the contractor have already been supplied and are further reviewed in terms of the attached documents .

I would also take this opportunity to note that the information examined by me in the context of this review is that held by the Council.

It does not include that held by East Renfrewshire Culture and Leisure Trust which is a separate legal entity for the purposes of freedom of information and environmental information disclosure.

That organisation does not hold information on behalf of the Council and any data held by it in relation to the subject matter of your request is held by it for its own purposes.

I highlight this as I am conscious that your review request suggested that you wish recorded information to and from and between ERCLT staff, officials and chief executive officer.

Any such request should be made direct to the Trust in its own right.

I trust this fully satisfies your request for review.

However, if you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this review, you have the right to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

His address is: Scottish Information Commissioner, Kinburn Castle, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9DS.

Yours sincerely
Gerry Mahon
Chief Officer - Legal & Procurement
Chief Executive Department

Extract from Documents mentioned in previous post -

Eastwood Park Vision & Masterplan: Future Opportunities Appraisal - Peter Brett

Proposal Background; Understanding of Project Requirements

PBA understands that East Renfrewshire Council (ERC) has previously undertaken a feasibility study / public consultation in relation to considering options for a replacement Eastwood Leisure Centre & Theatre.

To complement this, a Vision & Masterplanning study will consider potential options for the future of all buildings within Eastwood Park to optimise the future of the park and to consider how it could shape a new identity in the future.

The benefits of doing this are to independently assess the type of land uses that currently exist and to determine whether there is scope to expand or complement what already exists and to determine the size and scale of what could be built, or will work well together.

Strategic Brief

A specified element of the brief for the Leisure Centre Feasibility Study outlined the requirements for a new leisure centre which in turn dictates the overall size of the ‘new’ building which this masterplanning study will consider.

In addition to this, this study will also consider the other existing uses and whether there is scope to expand and /or relocate any of the users and to determine whether this would be in line with the Council’s strategic ambitions and the corporate policies & strategies.

An important part of this work will be to establish how the park can build on some of its relative successes and to ensure that the future uses are compatible with or at least complement the existing ones.

In particular, there is a current planning application for a new 180 place Family Centre which will sit adjacent to the community allotments and this will create a link between the OLM Primary and St. Ninian’s High School.

This provides an opportunity to consider how these inter-relate and to consider whether there is scope to combine and share facilities within enhanced buildings to afford mutual advantage.

The initial phase of the work would demonstrate what this ‘Vision’ would look like and with the help of a land use model we would establish how certain land uses would operate collectively.

It is important to realise that the present car dominated setting is not a sustainable model for the future.

Improved connections to the Park area also required and improved circulation around the park, along with a new to improve the destination value.

/more to follow.........................