Agenda item - Sports Hall Options Appraisal - pre scrutiny

Agenda item

Sports Hall Options Appraisal - pre scrutiny

Minutes:

John Godwin, Head of Leisure and Cultural Services introduced the report which included three recommendations. Members had requested that Officers commission an options appraisal to look at the feasibility of developing a dedicated sports hall offer on School Drive and this report detailed the journey that the Council had been on to date, potential timescales for the various options put forward, and the financial, service/operational and legal implications. The Council had requested that Mace complete the options appraisal.

 

In response to Members’ queries as to whether it had been agreed that a Sports Hall was required on site or not, the Head of Leisure and Cultural Services explained that the recommendations in the report were all progressive. The recommendations at 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 would both require the same process but if recommendation 2.1.4 was taken forward then none of the options for a Sports Hall would be progressed and the original decision from 2014 would be implemented.

 

Ms Louise Humphries, a member of the public, was invited to share her views on the matter. She raised concerns about the costs quoted in the Mace report compared to those in the Sports England affordable model report. It was queried if an invitation to tender had been made.

 

The Head of Leisure and Cultural Services confirmed that there would be a procurement process should the scheme be progressed and that the figures within the MACE report were based on square meter rates and recently commenced schemes. Recommendation 2.1.2 would start the process of detailed design and test the price with the market. For this to take place the Capital Programme would need to increase by £180k.

 

Ms Humphries expressed concern that, based on the Mace study a decision would be made that the project was too expensive and reassurances were sought that the Council was seeking value for money. She was concerned that a number of high comparative costs were referred to in the Mace study compared to the Sports England report, including the cost of contingencies.

 

In response Ms Humphries was referred to the answer provided at Full Council on the 24th April which addressed these concerns and overviewed the differences within the documents. The Head of Leisure and Cultural Services clarified that capital funding of £600k would be needed to complete Phase 2 (demolition) and Phase 3 works (car parking) which had been approved by the Council in its 1st June 2014 Dolphin Centre Replacement – Financial Update report.

 

Members queried the emphasis on soft play in the business case and the Head of Leisure and Cultural Services clarified that soft play provision would make up part of the income stream of up to £50k. There was no other soft play centres in the town and the Council had been looking for something to support the Sports Hall offer which could generate approximately £20k.  

 

Members raised concerns that by including potential costs in the Mace report this could prejudice the procurement process.

 

The Head of Leisure and Cultural Services referred to the complexities of the local government procurement process, with budgets being set out in the Council’s capital programme. These figures acted as a benchmark but the market would be asked to bid for the project and it was hoped that as many builders as possible would do so.

 

In response to queries regarding the future management model, the Head of Leisure and Cultural Services stated that the assumption was that SLM would manage the site and would do so as part of the existing contract although the contract would need to be remodelled and the Council would receive some uplift in return to contribute to the potential borrowing. If the site was operated separately this could potentially impact on profits as there would need to be separate staffing, booking arrangements and pricing structures for example. An alternative provider would therefore create additional costs which would impact on the level of prudential borrowing that could be achieved. To achieve an economy of scale it would be more advantageous to use the management at the main centre as this would maximise the level of borrowing available to the Council.

 

Members discussed the affordability of a sports hall and it was suggested from the information put forward that the Council could not afford to build a new sports hall as it had a responsibility to all the residents of Bromsgrove.

 

The Head of Leisure and Cultural Services clarified that the figures in the Mace report were indicative to provide a guide as to whether the scheme could be progressed or not. 

 

Members referred to the need to determine if the Council wished to go ahead with a sports hall or not. The Chairman suggested that the Board should recommend that Cabinet determine if a Sports Hall was needed or not and seek other quotes.  Members went on to question the need for a Sports Hall, the demand for a Sports Hall, together with the impact on health, businesses and livelihoods and the gap in the market for soft play. It was suggested that a full debate should be held at Council on whether to progress the Sports Hall or not.

 

The Head of Leisure and Cultural Services referred to recommendation 2.1.2 of the report which would involve going to market and getting prices which would enable a decision regarding Sports Hall provision at the Full Council meeting on the 21 November 2018. This recommendation would result in £180k cost being committed. If the decision was made not to commence with the Sports Hall then this £180k would be treated as revenue and not capital.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Leisure and Cultural Services explained that the item was on the agenda for Cabinet and would go on to Council for discussion.

 

In response to Members’ queries regarding the use of the Sports Hall, it was confirmed by the Head of Leisure and Cultural Services that following the closure of the old Sports Hall, the vast majority of users had found alternative venues and a breakdown of the figures could be provided.  It was stated that in the first quarter of 2018 the percentage occupancy of the site was 31%.

 

Ms Humphries referred to the difficulties in finding suitable alternative venues in Bromsgrove and explained that wheelchair users had struggled to find accessible venues and had to wait in turn to use a lift. There had been a six week waiting list for birthday parties for example. People had to access facilities out of the area.

 

Following discussion it was agreed that the Board should note the report and that the issue should be discussed at Council where the final decision would be made.

 

RESOLVED that the Board note the contents of the report.

Supporting documents: