A period of up to 15 minutes is allowed for members of the public to make a comment, ask questions or present petitions. Each member of the public has up to 3 minutes to do this. A councillor may also present a petition on behalf of a member of the public.
Minutes:
The Chairman announced that there had been a question raised by a member of the public.
Louise Humphries
“It's fantastic that the need for a sports hall in Bromsgrove has been recognised. However the options appraisal raised two major concerns. Firstly the huge increase in the cost of building a sports hall and secondly the low figure predicted for the potential income from a sports hall.
Sports England have published a document called Affordable Sports Halls which is freely available on their website at https://www.sportengland.org/media/4647/affordable-sports-halls-main-document-2015.pdf In this document the typical construction costs of building a 4 court sports hall and changing facilities is £1.3M compared to over £3M quoted in the options appraisal. The Sports England document was published in 2015 so obviously prices will have gone up since then. However, I think it very much shows that the figures we were given in the options appraisal need to be questioned. Surely inflation doesn't explain an increase of over 100% in just under 3 years.
My first question is how were the figures put together for the options appraisal? Specifically how many quotes were received when putting togther the options appraisal and who were these quotes from?
Secondly in the Sports England document the potential income of a 4 court sports hall for 40 hours of use is listed as £48,250. Whereas in the options appraisal the potential income for the sports hall is £0 - £20k. Why is the potential income for a sports hall in Bromsgrove predicted to be so much lower than what Sports England think is achievable?”
Councillor P. J. Whittaker, Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services responded that the design of the proposed new Sports Hall was based on option 1b of the Sport England guidance. Mace had based their costs on a like for like comparison with the Sports England model in the first instance including their design. The reason for a higher estimated capital cost compared to the guidance was:
· Increased costs in the early stage development were down to inflation, on which Sports England had based their costs in 2015.
· Mace options appraisal included for a number of site abnormal costs which included an extensive cut and fill exercise, allowances for potential further main services alterations, retaining wall, disability ramps and external canopies, which were not included in the Sports England model.
· Sports England also only allowed a nominal allowance for contingency as well as professional fees and survey costs. At this stage of the project Mace had allowed for higher allowances in each of these areas, which in turn increased the overall cost per m2.
· Quotations had not been received at this stage and the estimates were based on robust benchmark costs from a Mace database, in addition as the design was not detailed enough be priced by a contractor, should the project proceed, tender of the work could be based on a stage 3 design. At this stage Mace have benchmarked their costs against 8 recent sports hall and pavilion projects and over 25 sports and leisure projects which indicate the proposed cost plan was in line with these.
In response to the second question, Councillor Whittaker advised that the potential income in Sports England’s guidance was based on a community use as part of a school set up, and therefore the variable costs for maintenance were not comparable to the proposed sports hall in Bromsgrove. Whilst a detailed income projection for the sports hall needed to be completed, benchmark data and initial projects completed by the team suggested that an average sports hall should generate in the region of £15k to £20k per annum per badminton court. The planned facilities included 4 badminton courts, therefore on that basis the anticipated annual gross revenue from the sports hall would be in the region of £60k to £80k per annum.
Based on those initial estimates, the Council could expect the income to be in the region of £60k to £80k per annum with expenditure of around £60k. Therefore the net revenue position could be between £0 to £20k per annum. The next stage would be to complete a detailed business case on the information and local market in the Bromsgrove district, it should be noted that this study could have either a negative or positive impact on the current projections.
Members thanked Ms. Humphries for bringing forward these questions and questioned why this had not been included within the original proposal which had been brought before the Council in 2014. Members also questioned why the figures were so “out of line” with those provided by Sports England. Members thanked the Portfolio Holder for his response and requested assurances from him that the project would go ahead.