Agenda item
Leisure Centre Sports Hall Options Appraisal - Presentation
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed the Press and public to the meeting and it was confirmed that the slides from the presentation would be placed on the Council’s website the following day. It was agreed that questions and comments would be taken at the end of the presentation.
The meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes to allow for extra copies of the presentation to be printed for the public.
The Executive Director, Finance and Resources gave a presentation which covered the following areas (attached at appendix 1):
· Project Scope
· Various Options – each with an alternative option which provided added value based on soft play/tag active).
· Capital Costs for each of the options – detail was provided around preliminaries and overheads of profit as detailed in the chart.
· Affordability – high level revenue modelling had been undertaken and demonstrated an indicative positon. The potential need for borrowing and the use of balances was highlighted.
· Programming – dependent on the option chosen estimated completion dates were provided.
· Proposed next steps in the process – consideration by Cabinet and further work which would need to be undertaken.
During the presentation it was confirmed that negotiations with BAM had been around use of the sports hall for 48 weeks and then it had been solely the decision of the Head Teacher at the school to reduce this to 38-40 weeks, to take account of the examination period. Details around why this decision had been made were provided and the impact this had had. It was also confirmed that an approach had been made to Sports England in respect of support and funding.
Following receipt of the presentation Members discussed a number of areas in more detail, including:
· The advantage and disadvantages of the use of a modular unit. The life expectancy was approximately 40 years.
· The potential to bring the running of the sports hall back in house and the potential to make some profit from it.
· It was confirmed that the Head of Leisure and Cultural Services would lead on the project.
· The continued negotiations with BAM and the background around how the focus of these had changed following the School’s decision to limit the availability of the sports hall from the period originally agreed (it was confirmed that whilst the contract had been drawn up this had not been signed).
· Accrued income and the payback period in respect of the options which included the value added element.
· The need for any building to be compliant with Sports England guidelines.
· The original report from Sports England when it was highlighted that there was sufficient sports hall provision in the district. Members questioned whether this report would be reviewed and revisited. The Executive Director, Finance and Resources confirmed that this was in the process of being done.
· Views which had previously been put forward by the Board following the work of the Leisure Provision Task Group, where it had been recommended to Cabinet that the option for a sports hall remained open and that this was rejected by Cabinet.
· Members also questioned why there had now been a change of view and building a sports hall was being considered.
· In light of this and the recommendations from the Board, Members raised concerns in respect of the seriousness of the matter and the financial impact which that decision now has on the Council.
· The delays which had occurred in getting a final decision from BAM and the impact that this has had on the Council.
· The inclusion within the report of the option to not build a sports hall.
The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services took the opportunity to highlight a number of points, including:
· When the Council had agreed to build a new Leisure Centre this had not included a sports hall, as it was not felt necessary or affordable.
· Sports England’s report had said there was sufficient sports hall provision, but that better use needed to be made of it.
· In respect of the BAM agreement, all parties had originally been in agreement, but unfortunately due to the length of time which had followed a new Head Teacher had been appointed and had chosen to revise the availability of the hall during the exam periods.
· The Council had agreed that it needed the provision of a sports hall but believed it was able to satisfy the need through BAM.
· He did not believe that a sports hall was affordable for the Council.
Members went on to discuss further areas arising from the presentation and how they must consider what was in the best interests of the residents and look at the current situation and the financial burden that would lead from the building of a sports hall and whether this was of best value to its residents.
The Chairman commented that as Members had only received the information at this meeting, it was difficult for them to give a view as to which would be the most suitable option, particular as the figures had almost doubled in some cases from those which had originally been suggested. He questioned whether Everyone Active had been approached in respect of making a contribution towards the centre and the contractual implications of a sports hall being built by the Council rather than the original planned arrangements.
Members discussed whether the option of the Council running the Sports Hall as a stand-alone facility had been considered and again raised concerns as to whether this would impact on the contractual arrangements with Everyone Active. It was also questioned as to whether a decision should be deferred until an up date in respect of sports hall provision from Sports England was made available.
The Executive Director, Finance and Resources responded to a number of points raised by Members and advised that negotiations with BAM were continuing as, in the short term at least, a sports hall would still be required. She was unable to give assurances in respect of retaining the facility in house as the procurement options needed to be considered and the Legal Team consulted. A general discussion around borrowings had been held with the Auditors to gain their opinion in respect of prudential borrowing and they were as comfortable as they could be from the information they had received to date.
The Chairman gave the public the opportunity to speak at the meeting and the appointed spokesperson made the following comments:
· He thanked the Executive Director, Finance and Resources for a succinct report and believed that this was the first time such detail had been provided in the public arena.
· The Sports England report which had concentrated on the 18-25 and school leaver age group, and had in fact advised that a swimming pool was not necessary.
· The current sports hall and whether it could be brought up to Sports England standards – he believed that it was only the lighting which was inadequate.
· The need to work together to get a facility which met the needs of everyone concerned.
· How many groups who had previously used the sports hall had now found alternative locations and that there may be a difficulty in enticing them to return to Bromsgrove.
The Executive Director, Finance and Resources explained to Members that if refurbishment of the current facility was the preferred option, then it would need to be undertaken quickly as the remainder of the building was beginning to fall into disrepair and also consideration should be given as to whether this was appropriate as it blocked the view of the new building. Members questioned whether this had been raised by Everyone Active, or whether it was something which may cause problems in the future.
In summing up, the following final points were made by Members:
· The need for more detailed work to be carried out in respect of the modelling.
· The need to include the option to do nothing – as this may help with discussions with Sports England and encourage input from the community.
· The need for some sort of investigation, perhaps through the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee to be carried out into the decision which had previously been made and how this was reached, in order for those responsible to be held to account in what has been the most important and expensive decision that the Council has made in recent years. Alternatively, it was suggested that a task group could be set up if it was felt more appropriate for the Board to carry out this investigation. Again, reference was made to the recommendations which were made by the Leisure Provision Task Group.
The Executive Director, Finance and Resources confirmed that she would take back Members concerns to the Chief Executive. She also confirmed that it had been her decision for the Head of Leisure and Cultural Services to not attend this meeting.
It was noted that the in house cost of running the Dolphin Centre had produced a deficit of approximately £500k which had only been reduced by outsourcing it to Wychavon Leisure Trust. The economic return of a Sports Hall was very limited as was highlighted by the figures provided with only a small amount of return being made by the inclusion of a soft play or similar type of area. It was because of this that the Portfolio Holder did not believe that this was a good investment for the Council. However, Members did not believe that those who ran the Leisure Centre would do so without making a profit and that the Council should take up any opportunity available for financial gain. It was also highlighted that within the local plan there was the need to provide leisure facilities and that there was therefore a greater social need and return under the health and wellbeing agenda, not simply for financial return.
Following further discussion it was
RESOLVED:
a) that a Task Group be established to carry out a “lessons learnt” exercise (with Councillors Bloore and Baxter asked to complete a scoping document for presentation at the next meeting of the Board); and
b) that the presentation be noted.
Supporting documents:
PDF 208 KB