To receive a presentation setting out progress of the project which the Council agreed to fund for five years (2021/22-2025/26) to gain assurance around value for money and successful outcomes. 

59.1          The Director: Communities advised that a Community Support seminar was in the process of being arranged for all Members and Active Gloucestershire was one of the partners which would be presenting at that session along with the Citizens’ Advice Bureau and Gloucestershire Rural Community Council (GRCC).  The Chair reminded Members that the Committee’s job was to report back to the Executive Committee as to whether the £10,000 which Tewkesbury Borough Council contributed to the ‘We Can Move’ project was money well spent so he encouraged them to save any Ward specific queries for the Community Support seminar.

59.2          The representative from Active Gloucestershire gave the presentation, circulated separately, which outlined the ambitions of the ‘We Can Move’ project, highlights from across the county in 2023 and what that meant for Tewkesbury Borough along with plans for 2024. 

59.3          A Member felt the aspiration to halve inactivity rates in Gloucestershire by 2023 was commendable but he questioned how that would be achieved and measured.  In response, the representative from Active Gloucestershire advised that the ‘We Can Move’ project was a county approach and this was a county ambition in which Active Gloucestershire played a role but there were many external factors.  The goal had been set pre-pandemic and before the cost of living crisis so, whilst the intention remained, it would not be easy to achieve.  The most effective method for measuring success was a longitudinal survey called the Active Life Survey carried out by 300 people in each district on an annual basis to provide a baseline of their physical activity and how it increased or decreased.  Another Member asked how the achievements of the various partners were measured and was advised that a project management approach was taken with a ‘We Can Move’ evaluation for each project and every period.  The University of Bristol was undertaking a two year evaluation, the results of which would be in the public domain. It was intended to carry out another project level evaluation later in the year, subject to affordability.  The Member asked whether the onus was on each partner to report their successes and the representative from Active Gloucestershire confirmed that was the case, for example, a yoga programme evaluation looked at the number of people taking part, their ages, the number of unintended consequences etc. and, as a rule of thumb, 5-10% of each programme went to evaluation. 

59.4          A Member raised concern that although there was an awful lot of information within the presentation, there was very little data for the Committee to assess whether value for money was being achieved.  In response, the representative from Active Gloucestershire advised that he had given a brief overview rather than evidence to take forward and, as set out in the presentation, impact reports had been produced with two currently in the public domain.  All activity was reported to Tewkesbury Borough Council and Sports England with an annual report delivered to the Health and Wellbeing Board.  He indicated that he would be happy to provide any additional information Members felt they may need; however, he pointed out that reporting was not always the best use of money so that was a decision for the Borough Council to make.

59.5          In response to a query regarding the amount of money brought into organisations in the borough through the project, Members were advised that £1.2m turnover was a relatively small amount but the project also had the ability to take advantage of funding opportunities and provide support to clubs and organisations which was not always tangible.  In terms of obtaining grant funding, the organisations completed the forms and did the work themselves, Active Gloucestershire simply assisted with the process and was not named in terms of any of the documentation or databases required to be completed.

59.6          In response to a query as to whether Active Gloucestershire was able to reach all parts of Tewkesbury Borough given its size and rural and widespread nature, the representative from Active Gloucestershire advised that, although it did its best, it was not able to reach every area and that was one of the reasons for presenting to Members in order to find out where people needed support.  Another Member asked what Active Gloucestershire ‘We Can Move’ was doing to help with safe swimming amongst children as she was aware of the challenges facing schools in terms of getting children to swimming lessons and lack of available slots at leisure centres.  The representative from Active Gloucestershire indicated that he had seen the impact in terms of challenges elsewhere in the county which had been exacerbated by the temporary closure of GL1 – this had resulted in people going to neighbouring boroughs which had further reduced available slots.  Active Gloucestershire worked at a national level and partnered with Swim England to find and maintain opportunities to be physically active via swimming; schools had a statutory responsibility to provide swimming but that was not possible if facilities were unavailable.  A lot of work was being done by Sports England to support local authority leisure.

59.7          In terms of benefits to Tewkesbury Borough in 2023, a Member expressed the view that, on face value it seemed that the Council was getting a lot from its £10,000 investment but he felt it was lacking in terms of outcomes other than supporting with funding opportunities and he asked whether the benefits could still have been provided without the Council’s investment, or if more could have been delivered with a greater amount.  In response, the representative from Active Gloucestershire advised that the majority of the money was spent on staffing and, whilst it was possible that the outcomes would have been achieved without the investment as Active Gloucestershire would have worked equally hard with less, better and more secure funding would provide increased value for the county.  Notwithstanding this, if the Council was looking to invest more heavily in health and wellbeing and physical activity, it did not necessarily need to be directly with Active Gloucestershire ‘We Can Move’ and he would be happy to advise how it could be best spent.  Given that the majority of money was spent on staff, a Member asked whether it was necessary to consider wage information and the representative from Active Gloucestershire indicated that accounts were published but the relationship was based on trust.  He was not here today to ask for more money and provided assurance that the budget had been balanced for the next 12-15 months.

59.8          A Member asked how Members could have a closer relationship with Active Gloucestershire and how it might play a part in the development of the Joint Strategic and Local Plan (SLP) in terms of achieving aspirations for health and wellbeing.  In response, the representative from Active Gloucestershire advised that it was difficult to find people with the right skills but Active Gloucestershire worked closely with Sports England nationally.  In terms of active design, it was involved with the supplementary planning design consultation work in Gloucestershire around housing regeneration and was also invited to Active Travel England.

59.9          A Member asked what was being done to reduce inequalities and the representative from Active Gloucestershire advised that one example was the work to support disabled people and their carers to encourage them to do more physical activity.  The behaviour change model identified that those with the greatest influence over disabled people were their carers so those were the ones who needed to be targeted – disabled people tended to think that physical activity could do harm but the benefits far outweighed the risks and carers needed to be armed with this information so they could have the right conversations with the disabled person and change behaviour.

59.10        The Chair thanked the representative from Active Gloucestershire for their presentation and asked Members if they felt they had received enough information to be able to report back to the Executive Committee.  A Member expressed the view that he was comfortable to recommend that the Council should continue with its investment; however, he had concerns about the data that was available and felt the report had been largely aspirational rather than factual.  The Chair questioned whether the representative from Active Gloucestershire had been adequately briefed on what was required prior to the meeting and felt there was a need to give more specific direction to presenters.  A Member noted that a comment had been made about data being provided to Officers by Active Gloucestershire which Members had not seen and it was agreed it was necessary to find out what that information looked like to establish whether it was in a format which Members could use to aid future discussions.  A Member expressed the view that it seemed to be quite a laborious process based on the relatively small amount of funding and questioned whether this level of scrutiny was required.  The Chair advised that the Executive Committee had specifically resolved that this project be scrutinised on an annual basis by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee but he would be happy to make that point when reporting back.

59.11        It was subsequently

RESOLVED           That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee advise the Executive Committee that it was satisfied that the Active Gloucesteshire ‘We Can Move’ Project was providing value for money for the Council’s contribution.