Community Asset Transfer Request - Cumbernauld Cottage Trust
North Lanarkshire Council · 23 May 2023
Back to Education, Children and Families Committee — 23 May 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
North Lanarkshire Council Report Education, Children and Families Committee Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref SP/LP Date 23/05/23 Community Asset Transfer Request – Cumbernauld Cottage Trust From Stephen Penman, Chief Officer – Strategic Communication and Engagement E-mail penmanste@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07947997750 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide the Education, Children and Families Committee with the details of a Community Asset Transfer (CAT) request relating to the Former Cumbernauld Theatre and to provide information on the outcome of the assessment process together with a recommendation for decision. Details of the application and supporting documentation can be accessed here. Recommendations It is recommended that the Education, Children and Families Committee: - 1. Acknowledge the detailed assessment of the application against approved criteria and the recommendation for rejection of the proposal by the CAT Leadership Group; and 2. approve the rejection of the proposal for Community Asset Transfer of the former Cumbernauld Theatre (shown on map at appendix 1) as outlined in the application which can be accessed here and reflecting the council’s Community Asset Transfer Policy. This is based on the assessment findings summarised in this report and set out in full in Appendix 2 of this report. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Improve North Lanarkshire's resource base Ambition statement (22) Facilitate a North Lanarkshire wide approach to asset rationalisation, including with communities and partners
Page 2
1. Background 1.1 Part 5 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 places a statutory duty on local authorities and certain other public sector agencies to develop a clear process for supporting community participation and ownership of assets. The associated guidance for the delivery of Community Asset Transfer (CAT) articulates that the council’s responsibilities are to: • establish, maintain, and make available a register of land owned or leased by the council to the best of its knowledge and belief; • develop clear decision-making criteria, review, and appeals procedure for Community Asset Transfer; • actively provide information and promote the process for Community Asset Transfer and Participation Requests aligned to other participation opportunities; • assess the capacity of the organisation making a CAT request and provide support to assist them to fulfil their aspirations around community empowerment and participation outcomes; and • publish information relating to requests; and produce and publish annual reports. 1.2 The council’s Community Asset Transfer (CAT) process and assessment criteria were approved in 2019 by the then Community Empowerment Committee. The North Lanarkshire Council Community Asset Transfer policy can be viewed here. 2. Report North Lanarkshire Decision Making 2.1 Following initial engagement with groups interested in submitting a CAT request support is provided to the community organisation by key staff to assist them to understand the process and requirements and to self-assess their ‘readiness’ and capacity to take on an asset. 2.2 Upon a formal application being made, the council is bound to carry out an assessment of the request, establish that the applicant is a qualifying body and assess both the sustainability and likely benefit of the asset transfer. Benefits can include social wellbeing, economic benefit and provision of services and activities that would not otherwise be provided. The council must adhere to the following process. • acknowledge the request and provide information regarding timescales – the acknowledgement date is known as the validation date. • the timescale for a decision relating to a CAT request is normally 6 months from validation date. • the council and the group can mutually agree a different timescale if required (ie linked to committee cycles, funding decisions, etc). • If the CAT request is not approved, the group must be provided with information relating to review and appeals procedures. 2.3 On receipt of a CAT request made under the terms of Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 a panel of senior officers from across council services undertakes an assessment of the application. Thereafter the CAT Leadership Group made up of the Chief Officers for Strategic Communication & Engagement and Assets & Procurement are presented with the assessment information in order to consider and make recommendations to the committee for the relevant holding service.
Page 3
2.4 The legislation makes no distinction between operational and surplus assets. Where an asset is operational or it has been declared surplus, and a current or alternative use is identified as the most beneficial option for the council, a CAT application must demonstrate that its proposed use brings a higher level of community benefit. This is a key consideration in the council’s decision making, as is sustainability of the business model, evidence of community support or community benefit and organisational capacity to manage the asset. 2.5 Cumbernauld Cottage Trust CAT application Cumbernauld Cottage Trust submitted a formal CAT request on 14th September 2022. The application included all required supporting information and met the criteria for it to be assessed under the terms of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and in line with the council’s CAT policy and process. A panel of senior officers from key services met on 19th January 2023 to undertake an initial assessment of the application. This included: • Estates (Assets and Procurement) • Active and Creative Communities • Community Partnership Team • Community Facilities • Financial Solutions The findings of the Officer assessment panel were reported to the CAT Leadership Group on 1 March 2023 for consideration. The outcome of the assessment is attached as appendix 4. A summary of the assessment is below. 2.6 Assessment of CAT Request Summary Grading Very Strong Strong Moderate Weak Very Weak 1.Details of the asset x 2.Organisation information x 3.Type of Request x 4.Link to the NL Plan x 5.Community Proposal x x 6.Support x 7.Financial Information X 8.Risk/Social Impact x 2.7 Cumbernauld Cottage Trust are a not-for-profit voluntary group formed by local people for the benefit of the local community. Underpinning the CAT request is an aim to retain and restore the Former Cumbernauld Theatre site for use by individuals and community groups. Details of the application can be accessed here. 2.8 It is evident from the application that the Cottage Trust has in place a Board with a range of skills, expertise, and experience around delivery of the proposed activity and service provision. The governance arrangements meet the criteria for the submission of the CAT to be considered by the council. However, several key factors led to the conclusion that the community benefits of transferring this asset on the terms proposed
Page 4
do not outweigh the risk and concern identified through the assessment process. The main risks identified are around the potential for duplication of service and therefore both the possibility of detriment to the Trust and the successful implementation of their business plan and to existing providers especially where the council has reprovisioned and invested in a similar asset and service offer through the Lanternhouse Theatre site. 2.9 An overview of areas of challenge are as follows: Potential for duplication of service: The case for the transfer of the asset is built upon a service delivery model that is likely to create duplication with existing services that the council has already invested in. An operational decision was taken to close and cease delivery from this site and to relocate provision previously delivered to the new Lanternhouse Theatre site at Cumbernauld Academy Campus (approximately 1km away). The capital investment in relocating the theatre and café provision to the new campus has been significant (in the region of £37 million) and the council contributes a further resource of approximately £110k recurring revenue supported through a Service Level Agreement. The application does not adequately refer to how the services being offered as part of the CAT proposal add value to those already being delivered via other local venues and organisations in the Cumbernauld area, nor does it explore or evidence through market research that the potential for competition regarding income streams has been considered. The map of facilities at appendices 3 and 4 shows the range of services and facilities currently available in the area. Any duplication could undermine the financial projections and reduce the Trust’s ability to meet income targets. Project Delivery: While there is reference to staffing and management around service delivery at the point that the project is operational, it is unclear how the project would be robustly managed throughout the early stages including attracting and securing capital investment, procurement and construction. A project of this scale, risk and cost requires to be carefully project managed. The submission does not reflect this or provide full consideration of the operating model and ensuring that this is sustainable and can balance the required generation of capital investment, building and construction with the likely need for phased delivery and maintenance (including the potential for further decline for areas of the site that resource may not allow to be prioritised for delivery). Evidence of need/community benefit: There was some community engagement through public meetings in 2018 and a survey in 2019. The survey received 1500 responses, (3% of Cumbernauld population). This was pre pandemic and prior to the opening of the new theatre site in 2021. There is little evidence in the application of more recent engagement or assessment of need reflecting current provision and changes in behaviour/trends arising from the Covid-19 pandemic or indeed the impact of the recent cost of living crisis. The council has witnessed a 50% drop in use post pandemic in its own community facilities, with a slow rise in activities through recovery. This information could inform a negative impact on the ability of the Trust to meet projected income targets from lets, hiring of space and community use of income generating activity such as the café. Financial viability: A site visit was undertaken by the assessment group and showed the extent of the work required to bring this site to operational standard. This is further evidenced in a condition survey undertaken in February 2023. The application does not adequately evidence how the significant investment for capital works would be resourced nor does it show how the community body will financially support the operation of the building while the construction works are ongoing. The Trust has had
Page 5
the property valued at £45k, which is within an acceptable tolerance of the council’s anticipated market value of £40k . An offer of £20k for purchase of the asset has been made. Under the requirements of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 the group are entitled to make an offer at this level. An offer significantly below market value should evidence substantial community benefit which balances with the level of discount. The application in this case does not strongly enough evidence that the planned ‘offer’ to communities adds value to, compliments or provides an alternative to existing provision. The projected income generation does not reflect comparable incomes levels of sites operated by the council providing similar service provision. In terms of the council’s duties around best value, as outlined above there has been significant investment through a funding agreement and capital works for the Lanternhouse Theatre (building) and transfer of the asset at the offer price would present financial risk. Overall the capital works to bring the building into operation and the expected income generation from operation of the services planned are aspirational. The application did not provide sufficient reassurance of the financial sustainability of the project to balance the potential risk to the council of transferring the asset. There is no evidence that costs provided have been assessed in the context of the current ‘cost of living and ‘energy’ crisis and how these may impact on the operating costs in the short/medium term. Potential for ongoing maintenance burden/revenue implications for the council: The submitted request does not include the group taking on maintenance of the associated car park and access road which service the site and provide access to the parking provision for the buildings. The CAT application includes part but not all of the car park area. Agreeing to these terms may create a maintenance burden and liabilities for the council where there is not currently an operational budget associated with this asset. The closure of the site was assumed following the relocation of the provision to an alternative location. It would be challenging and complex to consider the transfer of the building in isolation from the car park and access road. 3. Measures of success 3.1 Consideration is given to a Community Asset Transfer request in accordance with the requirements of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, associated Scottish Government Guidance and the Council’s Community Asset Transfer Policy. Performance measures in respect of Community Asset Transfer and Participation are included in the Plan for North Lanarkshire – Strategic Performance Framework. The current performance. 3.2 Measures cover the following: - • numbers of successful Participation and CAT requests; • number of community groups engaged in Participation and CAT requests; • support provided to community groups and organisations as a result of initial CAT or Participation Request enquiries; and • positive outcomes or referrals because of initial CAT or PR enquiries
Page 6
4. Supporting documentation 4.1 Appendix 1 – Map 4.2 Appendix 2 – CAT Assessment report 4.2 Appendix 3 – Map of existing facilities 4.4 Appendix 4 – Cumbernauld Asset Map Links • North Lanarkshire Council information on Community Asset Transfer process • North Lanarkshire Councils Community Asset Transfer (CAT) Policy • Cumbernauld Cottage Trust CAT application • Condition survey • Lanternhouse Theatre Service Level Agreement Stephen Penman Chief Officer Strategic Communication & Engagement
Page 7
5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The Community Asset Transfer and Participation process assists the council to deliver on both the Fairer Scotland and key equality duties. In particular, the policy will further the public sector equality duties to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. An integrated Fairer Scotland/Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken in respect of the CAT policy. No concerns have been highlighted as a result of the assessment. An EQIA will be undertaken to assess the impact of any decisions taken and published accordingly If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality-and-fairer- scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☒ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Financial Solutions have been involved in assessment. Concern and risk highlighted regarding financial viability of the project and potential for duplication of service that the Council has already reprovisioned and invested in from another site. Offer of £20k is below anticipated market value of £45k. 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? However may impact on and link with the development of the Council’s Volunteering strategy and approach 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions?
Page 8
Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Legal representative involved in CAT process in an advisory capacity. This application was submitted under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and has been assessed in line with the associated statutory guidance. 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☒ Adequate procedures in place to manage the handling of personal information in line with the data protection procedures If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No x ☒ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Information linked to Community Asset Transfer applications, decision making and outcomes require to be published on the Council’s website North Lanarkshire Council information on Community Asset Transfer process 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☒ No ☐
Page 9
If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? The CAT process is reflected and managed as per the Council’s Risk Management approach. Details of specific identified risks relating to this application around outlined throughout the report. The main risk concerns are around potential duplication of services, financial viability and maintenance burden on the Council, project management and insufficient evidence of need. 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services.
Page 10
Appendix 1
Page 11
Appendix 2 Assessment Report Assessment framework used to inform the recommendation on a Community Asset Transfer Request Name of Organisation/Applicant Cumbernauld Cottage Trust Details of the Asset Former Cumbernauld Theatre Community Area/Ward Cumbernauld East (Ward 4) Date submitted 14 September 2022 Date of Assessment Panel 19th January 2023 Date of Leadership Group 1st March 2023 Date of committee decision May 2023 Summary comments from assessment panel Assessment undertaken by . • Community Partnership Manager • Strategic Asset Manager • Group Manager, Estates) • Surveyor, Estates • Active and Creative Communities Manager • Facility Support Services Manager • Financial Solutions Manager Final Recommendation from Leadership Group based on outcome of assessment by Corporate Assessment Panel Reject CAT Leadership Meeting 1st March 2023, 3.30pm, MS Teams Summary Grading Very Strong Strong Moderate Weak Very Weak 1.Details of the asset x 2.Organisation information x 3.Type of Request x 4.Link to the NL Plan x 5.Community Proposal x x 6.Support x 7.Financial Information X 8.Risk/Social Impact x
Page 12
1 Details of the Asset – Includes asset status and proposed use This section asks the council to ensure they are in a position to transfer the asset ÿ Very Strong: The proposal has a cost saving, does not impact on council direct delivery or service and there are no restrictions on the asset transfer ÿ Strong: The proposal is cost neutral to the council; it does not impact on council direct delivery of services and there are no restrictions on the asset transfer. ÿ Moderate: the proposals present difficulties on the council in terms of one or two of the following – direct cost, council direct delivery of services and or restrictions on the assets transfer. x Weak: the proposals present difficulties to the council in terms of cost, council direct deliver of services and restrictions on the asset transfer. ÿ Very Weak: unlikely to proceed because of ownership restrictions on the asset this would prevent a transfer of responsibility or ownership to another organisation. Comments The transfer of this asset is likely to present challenge to the council in relation to • The case for the transfer of the asset is built upon a service delivery model that is likely to create duplication with existing services that the council has already heavily invested in. The asset was historically transferred to North Lanarkshire on a commercial basis as part of the legacy estate and was previously leased to the theatre group to deliver previously agreed provision. An operational decision was taken to close and cease delivery from this site and to relocate provision previously delivered to another site (specifically the new Lanternhouse Theatre site at Cumbernuald Academy Campus). The investment in this site and relocation of provision was on the assumption that delivery from the old theatre site would cease through closure. There has been significant capital investment (£37million) in relocating the theatre and café provision to the new campus and approximately a further £110k recurring revenue contribution from the Council supported by a Service Level Agreement . • the request is for transfer of the asset and part of the car park. The request does not cover the group taking on maintenance of the associated car park and access road which both services the site and supports the parking provision of the buildings use. Agreeing to these terms may create a maintenance burden and as outlined above the council has not identified an operational budget associated with this asset as the closure of the site was assumed following the relocation of the provision to an alternative location. It would be challenging and complex to consider the transfer of the building in isolation from the car par and access road. • A site visit undertaken by assessment group and the extent of the work required to bring this site to operational standard was witnessed. This is further evidenced in a condition survey (Feb 2023) and further highlights concern relating to the viability of the project.
Page 13
2 Organisational Information – Includes governance and capacity to deliver Very Strong: Applicant has clearly evidenced that they are a robust and viable organisation with effective governance arrangements in place. ÿ Strong: Applicant has provided adequate evidence that they are a robust and viable organisation with satisfactory governance arrangements. X Moderate: Applicant has evidenced some signs of being robust and viable and partial information provided on governance arrangements. ÿ Weak: Applicant has shown no evidence of being robust and viable and no/little information being provided on governance arrangements. ÿ Very Weak: Applicant has provided no evidence of being robust or viable. Governance arrangement does not meet the criteria for asset transfer. Comments It is evident from the application that the Cottage Trust has a strong Board with a range of skills, expertise, and experience particularly around delivery of the proposed activity and service provision. They have robust governance arrangements in place that meet the criteria for the submission of the CAT to be considered by the Council. However, there appear to be some gaps identified in relation to evidence to suggest whether the Trust in its current format has the capacity or resource to project manage the whole process for a project of such scale. For example, there is reference to staffing around service delivery when the project is operational, but it is unclear how the project would be robustly managed throughout the early stages including attracting and securing capital investment, procurement and construction. A project of this scale, risk and cost would ideally require a full time Project Manager. The submission does not reflect this and appears to be grounded more in sentimental affiliation with the building itself without full consideration of the actual operating model and future proofing for success in relation to demand for the services they have to offer and that it is suggested may already exist within a short proximity from the potential project.
Page 14
3 Type of request, payment, and conditions This section confirms the type of request and seeks and whether or not the price reflects a fair price for the asset taking into consideration community benefit ÿ Very Strong: Applicant has proposed acceptable terms, with prices reflecting Market/Fair Value. (score would reflect acceptable terms; for example – the right timescale for being able to complete the sale or lease and funds are already in place) ÿ Strong: Applicant has proposed terms, with prices reflecting Market/Fair Value. X Moderate: Applicant has proposed terms, with prices well below Market/Fair Value. ÿ Weak: Applicant has failed to propose terms or prices. ÿ Very Weak: Applicant unsure of securing funding to afford costs. Comments The Trust has had the property valued at £45k in a similar region to the councils anticipated market value of £40k. An offer of £20k has been made and the Trust are entitled to make an application for this level of discount under the requirements of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) act 2015. Given the status of the asset the offer in theory would not impact negatively on the council from a financial perspective. However, an offer significantly below market value should evidence substantial community benefit which balances with the level of discount. The application in this case does not strongly enough evidence that the planned ‘offer’ to communities adds value to, compliments or provides an alternative to existing provision. The application and business plan references some community consultation pre pandemic and does not provide a current assessment of need to justify the level of discount. The terms of the application excluding the access road and the carpark is likely to create a maintenance burden on the council when the council decision to close the asset following its re- location of the provision means that there is no operational budget associated with the site or its maintenance. There is also concern around likely duplication of service across the activity associated with the CAT proposal, which delivered by the Lanternhouse Theatre which the council has significantly invested in and those available and delivered via other local venues and organisations in the cumbernauld area. The application fails to mention these other facilities and competition regarding income streams is a concern if they have not undertaken sufficient market research before submitting the application. The attached map of facilities shows the range of services and facilities available and how there is the potential for duplication of services in the area. This calls into question the projected income generation outlined in the application as any duplication could reduce the Trusts ability to meet income targets. The projected income generation does not reflect comparable incomes levels of sites operated by the council which provided similar service provision.
Page 15
4 Link to Strategy– How the project links into the vision and ambitions set out in the Plan for North Lanarkshire (TPFNL) ÿ Very Strong: Applicant has clearly evidenced that their project links in to the key themes of TPFNL ÿ Strong: Satisfactory evidence that the applicant understands the importance of linking to the outcomes of the TPFNL ÿ Moderate: Limited evidence that the applicant understands the need to ensure the projects reflect one of more of the strands of the TPFNL. X Weak: Little or no evidence that the applicant has made a clear connection to the TPFNL ÿ Very Weak: Applicant has no understanding of the TPFNL Comments The submission outlines how it will support the key priorities across TPFNL and maps how the proposal fits with priority areas. This is however a desktop exercise that talks about how the proposal in a more general sense supports the ambitions rather than specifying or evidencing how the proposal provides additionality or a different offer that supports the vision for NL and the future operating model. The offer at the Lantern house Theatre (approx. one km away) and the range of existing community facilities in the area mean that the services as outlined in the application could present competing pressures as it duplicates the service provision and fails to align to the future hub operating model. The council has reprovisioned and invested in services and capital improvement linked to the Lanternhouse site. Information relating to the funding agreement with the Lanternhouse Theatre can be accessed hereatt96641.pdf (northlanarkshire.gov.uk). As well as the ongoing annual investment from the Council of £110k outlined in the funding agreement, the council has invested capital resources in the new Lanternhouse Theatre (to the value of £37million.
Page 16
5 Community Proposal – Includes project aims, community engagement and community benefit/need ÿ Very Strong: Full consideration has been given to the aims, objectives, and vision with clear thought to the future direction of the proposal. The proposal provides, for example, a social/economic/environmental impact. Comprehensive evidence of need/demand provided including consultations, research, and surveys. ÿ Strong: Adequate description of aims, objectives and vision for the proposal. A good understanding of the community benefits including adequate evidence. Need/demand evidence include some consultation and research. X Moderate: Limited description of the aims, objectives, and vision for the proposal. Some understanding of the community benefit but not underpinned by substantive evidence. Some evidence of need/demand provided including limited consultations, research, and surveys. X Weak: Inadequate or no description of aims, objectives and vision for the proposal. Limited reference to community benefit and associated opportunities. No evidence of need/demand provided. ÿ Very Weak: No description of aims, objectives and vision for the proposal. No reference to community benefit. No evidence of need or demand provided. Comments While the aims of the Trust and the proposal are clear in terms of their aspirations, as outlined throughout this assessment the main concern is around • duplication of services with the new theatre and school campus • the management of the earlier stages of the project to balance generating capital investment, building and construction and phased delivery and maintenance (including the potential for further decline for areas of the site not prioritised for early work). There was some market evaluation with public meetings in 2018 and a survey in 2019. This was pre pandemic and prior to the opening of the new theatre site in 2021. There is no evidence of any more recent engagement or assessment of need reflecting current provision and changes in behaviour/trends arising from the Covid 19 pandemic. There is little evidence of additionality in the proposal. Overall, the application is light on evidence of current community engagement and need. Survey completed in 2019 received with 1500 responses, (3% of Cumbernauld population). The council within its own community facilities has witnesses a 50% drop in use post pandemic, with a very slow rise in activities. The council in light of this are currently reviewing their own assets. With other third-party community activities, this is potentially a high-risk area for the group to take on
Page 17
6 Support – Includes stakeholder engagement and partnership working This section looks Including evidence community and stakeholders have been engaged ÿ Very Strong: Applicant has clearly demonstrated links with relevant stakeholders and groups as well as strong local partnership and community engagement. Evidence of joint responsibility for delivery of other projects/service. ÿ Strong: applicant has evidenced some partnership working arrangements. Relevant links with groups also evidenced along with strong community engagement activity. ÿ Moderate: Applicant has demonstrated limited links with groups and community engagement activity. Some evidence of partnership working provided. X Weak: No/poor evidence of community involvement. No/poor evidence of partnership Working. ÿ Very Weak: No evidence of community involvement. No evidence of partnership working. Comments There was some market evaluation with public meetings in 2018 and a survey in 2019. This was pre pandemic and prior to the opening of the new theatre site and there is no evidence of any more recent engagement or assessment of need reflecting current provision and changes in behaviour/trends arising from the Covid 19 pandemic. There is little evidence of additionality in the proposal. Overall, the application is light on evidence of current community engagement and need. Survey completed in 2019 received with 1500 responses, (3% of Cumbernauld population). A bulleted list of partners has been provided. There are similarities between planned provision linked to this proposal and current services and other than providing a list of partners and stating that they do and will work in partnership there is limited evidence of how engagement with potential partners has taken place to inform complementary approaches. Further information would have been useful in relation to local partners providing similar types of services and how these have been mapped to avoid duplication. Some detail could have been provided of how they would work together to deliver complementary services and activities. There may be opportunities for the Trust to provide some proposed services with existing organisations and from existing buildings and facilities which would have more closely supported the councils ambitions around the Community Hub and future operating model. The application could be viewed as being more grounded in local heritage and nostalgia rather than need which is admirable, but the council needs to consider the major investment in service and capital at the Lantern house site and the risk associated with transferring this asset that could require significant investment.
Page 18
7 Financial Information – Includes fundraising, financial planning, and management We will seek clarification of funding being in place or any potential delay in funding being in place in time for the final transfer deadline. ÿ Very Strong: Clear Evidence that sufficient financial resources are/will be in place by the time of transfer and good resource planning for short/ medium/long term sustainability demonstrated. Detailed, realistic and achievable income and expenditure, cash flow forecast provided along with a comprehensive contingency plan. ÿ Strong: Evidence indicates that sufficient financial resources are/will be in place by the time of transfer and some resource planning has been demonstrated. Satisfactory income and expenditure and cash flow forecast. Some consideration has been given to contingency planning. ÿ Moderate: Applicant has demonstrated there are some financial resources in place but all finances may not be available within the timeframe. There is limited evidence of resource planning. Basic income and expenditure and cash flow forecast induced with limited consideration given to contingency planning. X Weak: Insufficient financial resources currently in place and unlikely to be ready within the Time frame. No evidence to demonstrate resource planning. No income and expenditure and cash flow forecast provided, and no contingency plan outlined. ÿ Very Weak: No evidence of financial resources in place. No evidence of resources or financial forecast to predict cash flow. Comments The projected capital works to bring the building into operation and the expected income generation from operation of the services planned are very aspirational raising some potential concerns and gaps in the application around • A lack of evidence of contingency planning (re expected income if delays with build, emergencies, Cost of Living, pandemic, scenario planning, impact on costs) • etc) • Potential for competing services and facilities and the impact on income have not been factored into financial plans • Crowd Funding is mentioned which is not considered a reliable income stream • Capital investment is very significant and as outlined above it is unclear how the major construction project will be operationally managed The business case and application moves straight to delivery and does not fully lay out the scale of the project or how it will be financially managed in terms of • Set up costs • Build costs • Future delivery costs • Contingency planning Some points noted about revenue income • High level Income and Expenditure Table presented. However, production of an indicative cashflow (indicates income v expenditure on a month by month basis) would have
Page 19
provided reassurance that upward or downward trends in income and expenditure have been considered, ensuring that obligations can be covered each month. • Café/Bar projected revenue of £120k seems optimistic when compared to existing NLC facilities as is let income for hire of spaces £10-20 p/h – there is no information provided regarding what this has been benchmarked against or how these figures have been reached • There is a projection of £300 per month from local businesses taking space however there is already challenge in filling existing available empty space in Cumbernauld. Again it is unclear if this is comparable to market evidence of need • There is no evidence that costs provided have been assessed in the current ‘cost of living’ and ‘energy’ crisis and how this impacts on the operating costs in the short/medium term? (Contingency planning) • There is no evidence in costings relating to assessment of technical support for delivering arts and theatre activity as part of cost projections • It is not clear how factoring of cost of owning/maintaining asset has been considered to cover the period prior to mobilisation and generating income ( ie during construction, early phases of delivery) As outlined above the council has invested through a funding agreement £110k revenue resource as well as capital resources for the new Lanternhouse Theatre (building) to the value of £37 million The funding agreement can be accessed here att96641.pdf (northlanarkshire.gov.uk).
Page 20
8 Risk/Social Impact – Includes potential impact and barriers/challenges and understanding of managing the asset. ÿ Very Strong: Full evidence that applicant has in place the necessary capabilities to manage the asset. Considerable awareness of the potential impact of the transfer on others, and barriers/challenges clearly identified. Comprehensive information provided on the anticipated social benefit/impact of the transfer and how this will be measured. ÿ Strong: Satisfactory evidence that applicant has the necessary capabilities to manage the asset. Sufficient awareness of the potential impact of the transfer on others with consideration given to potential barriers/challenges. Adequate information provided on the anticipated social benefit/transfer. ÿ Moderate: Limited evidence to demonstrate capabilities to manage the asset. Some awareness of the potential impact of transfer on others and consideration given to potential barriers/challenges. Minimal information provided on the anticipated social benefit/impact of the transfer. X Weak: Inadequate or no evidence of capabilities in place to manage the asset. Little or no awareness of the potential impact of the transfer on others or possible barriers/challenges identified. No social benefit/impact monitoring outlined. ÿ Very Weak: applicant has provided no evidence of capabilities to manage the asset. No awareness of the potential impact of the transfer on others. No social benefit or impact monitoring in place. Comments As outlined at 7 and throughout assessment the business case and application does not fully reflect the scale of the project or how it will be financially managed in terms of • Set up costs • Build costs • Future delivery costs • Contingency planning The main risks are around • Potential duplication of service and therefore both the possibility of detriment to the Trust and the successful implementation of their business plan and to existing providers especially where the council has reprovisioned and invested in a similar asset and offer through the Lanternhouse site. • Much of the income generation projected is linked to café, bar and letting of space. This is an area that is still recovering from the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis is impacting further. Community use of leisure, recreation and social services and facilities has been affected as previously stated. Participation in non-sport activities within the council remit have dropped almost 50% post pandemic and social habits have changed. This is reflected in the councils operating model plans and there is limited evidence that market need, and trends have been assessed in the current climate
Page 21
Appendix 3 Map of existing facilities
Page 22
Appendix 4 Cumbernauld Asset Map