Councillors have questioned whether Bedford Borough Council is getting value for money from its leisure services contract after officers confirmed the authority remains fully exposed to operating costs.
And has yet to recoup a £600,000 investment in the town’s athletics track.
The Environment and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee (15 January) was presented with an update on the council’s interim leisure contract with Greenwich Leisure Ltd (GLL), which has run Bedford’s council-owned leisure facilities since February 2024.
Read: A new dawn for Bedford Borough leisure centres
Read: New Bedford Borough leisure operator says customer feedback about them has been “positive”
The contract has already been extended to January 2027 while officers work on a long-term procurement strategy.
A written report stated that the contract’s operational deficit, excluding utilities, is forecast to stand at around £1.16 million in 2025/26, alongside a further £636,000 in utilities costs, borne by the council.
While officers and GLL highlighted increased participation and membership, several councillors pressed for clearer evidence that rising usage was translating into reduced subsidy.
Councillor Charles Royden (Lib Dems, Brickhill) said: “You’re still operating with a large subsidy, I think it’s £1.16 million, but you’ve talked about the increase in membership and a 27 per cent increase in participation.
“We’ve also had centres closing down… Can you explain why there’s not a massive increase in income, which would then allow us not to be paying out so much in subsidies?”
Gillan Kelly, GLL partnership manager, said: “There is a significant increase in income, and that supports driving down the cost of service.
“If you look at year one versus year two, that subsidy is coming down and the forecast for this next financial year, the cost of service comes down further.
“The cost is reducing as we move forward.”
Council: exposed to risks
The committee heard that the resurfaced Bedford International Athletic Stadium track cost approximately £600,000, funded through council capital, and that the investment has not yet been recouped.
“No, we haven’t recouped the cost of that yet because the track works were completed in the past month or so. The recoup on that investment is going to start to be seen as we get into the athletic season this year,” Mr Kelly said.
Officers also confirmed that under the current “open book” interim contract, the council carries virtually all financial risk.
Head of leisure and culture, Tom Perrett, said: “So, the net deficit of each site is what is covered financially by the council.
“So, the more income that the site generates, which we need to see improvements in, as a result of the investment in the track, the more that will reduce the overall net deficit and reduce the cost to the council.”
He further confirmed that utility costs sit outside the GLL contract, leaving the council fully exposed to energy price fluctuations.
Councillor Jonathan Abbott (Lib Dems, Clapham and Oakley) said: “In that case, yeah, we are just fully exposed.”
“Not a lot of information”
Councillors also raised concerns about the lack of detailed performance and cost data in the public report.
Councillor Royden said: “It’s very difficult to do scrutiny when you don’t have a lot of information, and there isn’t a lot of information here.
“We’re told it’s 27 per cent [participation increase], but there’s no independent verification, there’s no clear baseline.
“We haven’t got a breakdown of which premises are costing us which amount of money, we haven’t got the data in terms of income.
“We’d expect some notes now about how much the income’s gone up, where it’s going, and how much it’s all costing us because this is a Rolls-Royce contract as far as GLL is concerned.
“We underwrite everything… this is the kind of contract that I imagine you would die for as a provider because we carry all the risk.
“It’s costing us a lot of money… I would be grateful if you could send us some granular detail, which isn’t in this report, about the costs, about the income, and where it’s going, about the breakdown of the expenditure, so that we know what it is.”
Officers agreed to circulate fuller KPI and financial breakdowns to committee members.
Procurement plan
The committee also questioned delays in developing a long-term procurement strategy to replace the interim contract.
Mr Perrett said a full project plan and procurement timetable would be ready “within the next month”, adding that the long-term arrangement must “secure the best value for money for residents” while protecting leisure services.
The report and GLL’s presentation highlighted increased participation, improved customer satisfaction scores, and expanded community programmes across the borough’s leisure facilities.
As well as the 27 per cent year-on-year increase in overall participation, Mr Kelly added that membership was up 25 per cent.
However, councillors signalled they expect closer scrutiny going forward.
Councillor Abbott said: “At the moment, these figures aren’t demonstrating this being a sustainable or affordable contract.
“I think it’s really important we get this long-term leisure strategy in place… because this is costing residents money at the moment.”
The committee formally noted the report but requested further performance and financial data for future scrutiny sessions.
by John Guinn
Local Democracy Reporter
