Agenda item

Report ES13038

Approval was sought to revise the existing charging policy for the Bromley Environmental Education Centre at High Elms (BEECHE) and introduce charges for outdoor fitness trainers using the Borough’s parks and open spaces commercially.

Report ES13038 outlined the revised BEECHE charges and reasoning for them. It also outlined proposed annual fees to outdoor fitness trainers, according to the number of clients and either one or two sessions per week. A rational for the proposed charges was also provided.

Potential income from the revised BEECHE charges, 2013/14 was compared to 2012/13 income. Estimated income from fees/charges to outdoor fitness trainers was also provided although it was not known how many applications would be received.

A system of registration, application and checking would need to be introduced for the fitness trainers. A personal trainer would need to apply and provide accredited Fitness Industry Association (FIA) approved training qualifications, risk assessment, lesson plan, Public liability Insurance document and a signed licence/agreement upon which a permit/licence would be issued. A draft licence was appended to Report ES13038.

Subject to revenue collection being economically viable, Councillor Adams felt that charging trainers was justified given that indoor trainers are charged for similar activity in leisure centres. From example fee ranges highlighted by officer research at Appendix 2 to Report ES13038, Councillor Adams favoured examples 1 or 3. Concerning the draft “Licence to operate”, he thought this seemed watertight from a Council viewpoint and he also asked whether the Council should be discretionary on the types of parks to use for fitness activities. In response, the Licence document was considered to provide a watertight agreement between fitness operators and the Council, putting the onus on the operator. For a trainer having between four and ten clients at one session per week, it was proposed to charge £250.

Without such licensing in operation, Councillor Adams enquired whether the Council would be liable if a member of the public incurred an injury at a Council owned park. Should there be unauthorised activity, it was suggested the Council would not be liable. Football teams were expected to pay for public liability insurance.

Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher suggested that enforcing a charging system could cost as much as the revenue obtained. Such a watertight licensing arrangement might also cause difficulties for some trainers and be off-putting. She asked how it was proposed to challenge individuals who might simply be a group of friends training. It was indicated that Ward Security personnel would speak to the individuals; the system was not proposed to be onerous and it was necessary for administration to be cost effective. It was proposed to report back to Members on how the system was working. The Chairman also highlighted a role for the Friends of Parks.

Councillor Grainger sought to understand the benefits trainers might receive from registering rather than operating unlicensed at different locations, including open land. He was also concerned that groups of joggers might be mistaken for trainers and clients.

It was suggested there would be a difference between trainers and others such as joggers and footballers. In particular, trainers could be expected to use equipment such as “step-ups”. For any unlicensed session, it was proposed that Ward personnel would approach the trainer(s) to offer advice on the licensing system and provide leaflets.

A registered trainer would also be expected to have the necessary professional fitness qualifications and a Council licensing system would help to improve the local outdoor fitness offer. People had also been asking for such arrangements.

However, in line with removing obstacles for business, Councillor Grainger suggested this might not be achieved by the approach proposed. He also asked why a trainer needed to have Public Liability Insurance cover of £5m for any one incident. Councillor Adams thought £5m seemed to be the insurance sector’s starting point. Councillor Milner saw the proposed system as a measure to manage a demand. He felt the draft licence was not onerous, provided the licensee obtained the necessary insurance cover.

In response to a question from the Vice-Chairman, it was confirmed that officers would seek evidence of CRB checks for trainers and their staff. However, Councillor Grainger questioned why the Council should be concerned about CRB checks if children were not being trained. Given his concern for practicalities such as enforcement and administration costs, Councillor Grainger preferred to support the system on a trial basis only.

The Chairman highlighted that at Goddington Park, runners were assisting in restoring the Pavilion and contributing to the park’s efficient running. He supported the proposed licensing system provided fitness trainers and their clients moved around a park to limit grass damage to an area. Councillor Fookes also supported charging particularly where operators used a Council park and advertised.

Concerning BEECHE, it was confirmed to Councillor Fookes that the Council was funding the Centre to an amount of between £50k and £60k per year. Councillor Fookes suggested charging academy schools more than the borough’s maintained schools.

Councillor Grainger highlighted that most visits to BEECHE were at the weekend. A significant upturn in visits for the Easter weekend was attributed to an Easter Egg Hunt. Total visits to the Centre for 2012/13 amounted to almost 15,000 and there could be up to 60 daily visits on some days. Councillor Grainger suggested that other opportunities could be opened up with marketing.

The Chairman proposed that the recommendations be supported subject to additional wording to Recommendation 2.2 of Report ES13038.

On charges to outdoor trainers, Councillor Grainger suggested charging a trainer with three or less clients; a trainer might have a number of clients but choose to take each client out individually. Moreover, the trainer might continue to advertise. Given a possible transient nature of clients, he also suggested that trainers be charged monthly or quarterly. Councillor Adams endorsed the views of Councillor Grainger provided it was not cost prohibitive to administer/collect fees.

Members were advised that it was not intended to price small operators out of business. The Chairman suggested that the system be reviewed after the first year of operation; an assessment could then be made on whether it would be sensible to charge a trainer with three or less clients.

On VAT, it was confirmed that charges for the BEECHE school were VAT exempt but fitness training charges would be subject to VAT.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

(1)  approve the revised charges for BEECHE for implementation from

1st May 2013; and

(2)  approve the introduction of charges from 1st May 2013 for outdoor fitness trainers using the Borough’s parks and open spaces commercially, subject to:

·  charges being a Bromley Parks Licence or charge;

·  provision of a suitable increment charge for more than two sessions per week and a maximum charge for trainers with four or more sessions per week; and

·  the charges being introduced for an initial period of one year and then reviewed.