Gareth Young introduced the report and updated the Panel on progress in moving to a commissioning model for adult education and the recent Skills Funding Agency announcement of further in year budget cuts.  As part of the recommendations made for Cabinet consideration at their meeting on 14 September 2015, it was proposed that the Whately Avenue site not be made available as part of the procurement process for the newly commissioned adult education service. The Integrated Property Team was asked to look at alternative uses for the site.  The Panel heard that soft market testing confirmed that there was a vibrant market for the council to commission adult education services. Potential providers did not indicate that the Whately Avenue site should be retained.

Members heard that the reduction in the Skills Funding Agency budget has also impacted on the services that can be delivered. Further budget cuts are also anticipated. Cabinet will make a judgement as to whether or not to commence with the statutory procurement process in full at their meeting on 14^th September 2015.

Councillor David Dean asked why the council would not continue to deliver the service if the market was vibrant. Gareth Young explained that there is a high level of fixed costs to maintain the service. This model means that the service will be more sustainable if there are further funding cuts.

Councillor David Dean stated that Whately Avenue site should not be removed from the process and that students should be given an option. Gareth Young explained that it is not right to offer an asset to market if funding is reduced and the fixed price of the asset isn’t chargeable and will therefore have a knock on effect on the sustainability of the service. The council are dealing with single year funding settlements and this makes planning difficult.

Councillor Daniel Holden enquired about the methods for public consultation. Gareth Young explained bidders were consulted in the first instance due to timescales; however, opportunities to comment were made available to residents and students.

Councillor John Sargeant added that a strong impression was being given that the Whately Avenue site would be disposed of and asked if it was not wiser to keep this site under consideration. Gareth Young explained that 60% of providers expressed an interest in the Whately Avenue site but that not all providers would be in a position to take on the full service and use of the site. A lot of them are small providers cant take on the whole of the site.

            Councillor Daniel Holden asked what would happen to the Whately Avenue site. James McGinlay explained that the site would be passed back through the council’s asset management plan and consultation would be undertaken in line with planning law. The valuation of the site would be made following a review to consider its purpose. Gareth Young added that the valuation of the site in the report was taken from an asset review dated 18 months ago and asset values change frequently.

Councillor Jeff Hanna asked what difference it would make, in terms of costs and the curriculum offer, if the Whately Avenue site was used. Gareth Young explained that the curriculum would be set during the tendering process and the council would expect to provide the same broad curriculum areas regardless of the site. The council would avoid high fixed asset costs in using the site. There are a number of sites in Merton that can be used, for example, existing colleges or other community venues in Merton. 

Councillor Jeff Hanna asked if provision would be spread across the borough. Gareth Young explained that this was dependent upon the bid from providers.

Councillor Daniel Holden asked if the Marlborough Hall site would revert back to a library site. Councillor Martin Whelton explained that 2 courses are currently held at that site and the site would revert back to a library and alternative and future use would be considered.

Councillor David Dean stated that financial analysis should be undertaken regarding the Whately Avenue site and potential incentives for providers should be considered before agreeing to dispose of the site.

RESOLVED:  Panel agreed to make the following recommendations on the proposals to Cabinet for consideration at their 14^th September 2015 meeting:

a)   That Cabinet consider providing more detail (at paragraph 2.13 in the report) to explain that expressions of interest from providers in the Whatley Avenue site require further consideration, particularly regarding the scale of providers and curriculum offer, along with the costs of managing the site.

b)   That Cabinet consider all options including maintaining the Whately Avenue site.

c)   That Cabinet ensure that the user group be appropriately consulted during the commissioning process.