The Green-Labour coalition in charge of Warwick District Council resisted calls to reconsider the relocation of customer services to the Pump Rooms, Leamington, during a two-hour barrage of criticism. 

Wednesday's (July 26) meeting for all district councillors was dominated by the issue with three waves of opposition but the two leading parties stuck together and voted to continue with the proposals. 

Earlier this month, Warwick District Council's cabinet unanimously agreed to repurpose the shop in the Royal Pump Rooms, The Parade due to the planned sale and closure of the council's Riverside House base.

More than 2,000 people signed an online petition to protect the shop, which operates alongside Leamington Spa Art Gallery & Museum, with the council's report acknowledging the closure would "directly impact on 20 artists who regularly sell their works at the site".

Alternative proposals to relocate the council's services to the Town Hall or a vacant shop were deemed less favourable by professionals at the authority.

A public petition with more than 2,300 signatures was presented, leaving councillors with the options of referring the matter back to cabinet or taking no further action. 

The original decision to move services to the Pump Rooms was taken in February when a Conservative-led cabinet was still in power. 

Keeping the Art Shop

While debating the petition, one of the cabinet members at that time Cllr Jan Matecki insisted the intention had always been to keep the art shop. 

"The vision I had was that it would be an open-plan area with a floorwalker," he said.

"Minimalistic, maybe a pod or two, and that would maybe have given us room to keep the shop, the whole thing was about keeping the shop. 

"When I look at these plans, it looks like whoever has come up with them has not been given a budget – let's just chuck everything fancy, look at these colour schemes, let's have a reception desk. 

"I can see why the budget is twice what it was, there is a whole lot of unnecessary stuff there. The whole plan needs to be thrown back at the designers with (the original) budget of £200,000, give us something that is going to be functional and find a space for the shop. Simple as that."

Setting the pattern for the night, that vote went along party lines with Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and members of Whitnash Residents' Association believing the matter should be looked at again but Green and Labour keeping together its majority to say no.

Called In

From there it was about the call-in of the decision by the council's overview and scrutiny committee, a panel of councillors that parks political allegiances to make recommendations that have to be heard but not necessarily accepted. 

It asked for a more detailed breakdown of customer footfall, an update on plans for related council projects, more detail on how alternative options were considered and requested that all councillors should be granted the opportunity to debate the loss of the shop.

The point over allowing a full debate was the next to rear its head.

Liberal Democrat leader Cllr Alan Boad called for a pause to standing orders so the matter could be debated without limitation. Normally, councillors can only speak once without the ability for members to question one another. 

The vote went the same way, much to the disappointment of Conservative leader Cllr Andrew Day.

"I am disappointed that after 2,000 of our residents had their views simply set aside, not listened to by cabinet, here we are with an important matter that affects the face-to-face services this council will be delivering and we are again going to curtail a proper and full debate," he said. 

"I would encourage councillors to reflect on our role when we meet here, to recognise that we can find cross-party points that we can share an opinion on. If we simply revert to a party basis that will not necessarily, in my view, deliver the best outcomes for our residents." 

Cllr Jonathan Chilvers argued that every councillor would have up to 10 minutes each under existing rules, noting the matter had been extensively debated in the past. 

"I don't see that us speaking multiple times and potentially extending that further is going to serve any purpose," he said. 

Next Steps

That led to the third and most important part – overview and scrutiny's referral to council. 

Based on a simple majority vote, the council could choose to take no further action or refer the original decision back to cabinet for reconsideration. 

The arguments for thinking again included the estimated cost shooting up from £200,000 to £410,000, "Rolls Royce option" enhancements to the project that have fuelled the increase, new and inconsistent information over potential footfall and the four-month delay – from October this year to February 2024 – to moving out of Riverside House that only came to light over the past week. 

Chair of overview and scrutiny Cllr Andrew Milton said: "I have to say, the more we have scrutinised it, the more concerned I have become. I have become even more concerned over the past 24 hours. Things keep changing."

He said that figures relating to the use of the services had not landed until 10:04pm on Tuesday, the night before the meeting. 

"That was the first time we had seen it, I question whether anyone else had seen it before then," he added. 

"Quite frankly, it doesn't seem like anyone has a grip on it. The figures that have only been provided now, surely that is the sort of information anyone making that decision needs to have in order for it to be robust. I don't understand how the decision can be made without them."

Cllr Phil Kohler then picked up the baton.

"The report in February had cross-party support, it was a sensible compromise but things have changed drastically since then. We should be considering it on the facts and the facts alone," he said. 

Noting the new delay, he added: "That is not the sign of a successful project. Successful projects are very boring, the dates don't change. They certainly don't change by four months in four days, and I would still question whether that is achievable.

"It has all the hallmarks of a failing project. It is going to fail, you are going to come back and say 'sorry, the timings are now this'. Please, take the time now to make a better decision."

He went on to read out conflicts within the council's own documents which state that council meetings may have to take place at Riverside House while other work is carried out at the Town Hall, Leamington, months after the current projected leaving date.

"There are just so many loose strands, you pull on a thread and the whole thing unravels," he said. 

"This is an appalling decision, you need to take it back to cabinet and come up with a proper plan." 

The main arguments for sticking with the decision centre around the costs of keeping Riverside House running – estimated to be £58,000 per month – despite the bulk of the building no longer being in use, the March deadline to move out and the time and processes it would take to go with another option at this late stage.

'Anger and Frustration'

Under-fire leader Cllr Ian Davison moved to head off each point, opening with the suggestion that "some might describe this as a hospital pass from the previous administration". 

"After all, the decision to locate the customer services in the Pump Rooms was made in February," he said.

"Quite a lot of the debate today has been about that decision. Frankly and bluntly, the call-in should have been made then if that was a concern."

He said he understood that there was "anger and frustration" over the impact of the decision, particularly on the art shop, but that it was his job to offset that against "logic". 

"It is working out what is in the best interests of the residents as a whole, that is what I am focusing on, not who is shouting the loudest but what is in the best interests of our residents," he said. 

"This is where I am struggling (with the arguments against), I am struggling to see the logic of what is being said." 

He issued a triple apology for the tardiness of some information coming forward, including profit levels for the current shop, the planned uses of space at the Town Hall that objectors felt would be a better option for front-of-house services and on any potential new location for the shop, but argued new information related to "one or two tweaks" and would not be material enough for the cabinet to change course.

"When we have quizzed the officers in public and in private, they have given pretty solid replies and cabinet has certainly been content with what is happening," said Cllr Davison. 

"The delay in moving out of Riverside House until the new year did shock me, that was not what I had been told so I agree fully about that. That is a huge concern."

Cllr Kohler interjected, challenging the leader to "do something about it". 

Cllr Davison continued: "The reasons I have been given for that are the amount of officer time to work through these things and IT. You are absolutely right, we need to be on it as quickly as we can.

"We can argue whose fault it was but at the minute, the position is not good. For me, that is a major reason that we need to draw a line under this and get officers focusing 100 per cent on delivery."

Justification on the price increase and enhancements to the design of the new facilities was based on feedback from the public and a wish to adequately separate services in relation to noise and privacy. 

"You say now that we shouldn't listen to residents' concerns but you were saying a moment ago that we had to," said Cllr Davison. 

Cllr Boad had earlier suggested that a vacant office could be rented out for a year to provide the services, enabling work on a permanent solution at the Town Hall.

Cllr Davison described that as "quite an interesting idea" but said: "Unfortunately, councils don't work that way.

"You don't have a quick chat, ring someone up and put a few desks in. It takes longer than that, which is why I said that we have been told by officers that any change would come to cabinet in November which means it would push everything well into the new year."

Cllr Davison concluded: "We are listening, we are trying to be open and transparent but the evidence is overwhelming that we need to carry on with the decisions that the officers have made.

"We have trusted them to do that, there is no evidence to show anything different from that. Dither and delay is absolutely not what we need."

That final address raised eyebrows in the opposition ranks as councillors make decisions having assessed the recommendations that come from council officers.

(Image by David Dixon via geograph.org)