Agenda item - Recommendations from the Cabinet

Agenda item

Recommendations from the Cabinet

To consider the recommendations from the meeting(s) of the Cabinet.

Minutes:

Bromsgrove Sport & Leisure Centre – Sports Hall Options Appraisal

 

The recommendation from Cabinet in respect of the Sports Hall was proposed by Councillor P. J. Whittaker, Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Cultural and Environmental Services and seconded by Councillor B. Cooper.

 

Councillor P. Whittaker advised Members that the Council had, today 13th June, received a nomination for the Sports Hall to be considered for listing as an Asset of Community Value.  This application had been acknowledged and would be processed in the usual way.  The listing of an asset as an “Asset of Community Value” operates to delay any proposed sale of the listed asset by the owner, by giving a community group the time to declare an interest in acquiring the asset and to make a bid to buy it.  Councillor Whittaker advised that for this reason, receipt of this nomination did not affect the recommendation from Cabinet, which was before Council.  As landowners of the site, the Council could make this decision.

 

In presenting the report Councillor Whittaker reminded Members that the decision to replace the old Dolphin Centre was taken in 2014, based on Sport England’s appraisal that there was no need to build a replacement Sports Hall as there was adequate provision within the district (Councillor Whittaker believed that there were some 7 halls around the District).  Officers were tasked to enter negotiations with BAM, North Bromsgrove High School (NBHS) and Worcestershire County Council (WCC) in order to gain access to NBHS’s sports hall which was adjacent to the new leisure centre.  This was to allow a continuation of sports provision after school and at weekends.

 

The agreed facility mix of the new leisure centre allowed the Council to meet the prudential borrowing criteria which would allow the Council to borrow sufficient funds for the project to proceed.  The Capital Programme was subsequently increased after the Council received news that Sports England would grant some £1.5m to facilitate the climbing wall and estimates suggested an increase in the total cost of the project.  Construction started some two years ago, around August 2016 and Phase 1 was completed at the end of November 2017.

 

Councillor Whittaker went on to explain that after long and protracted negotiations Heads of Terms were agreed with regard to the BAM agreement and the documents were in the process of being written when there was a change of Head Teacher at NBHS.  The Head insisted that the hall was needed for exams for a longer period than had been suggested and BAM were informed that the availability of the sports hall would now be for some 38 weeks instead of the 48 weeks as originally envisaged.  BAM then communicated to the Council that the offer of 48 weeks could no longer proceed.

 

Councillor Whittaker therefore asked officers to prepare a report for consideration into the possibility of refurbishment of the existing Sports Hall or the building of a new facility.  Knowing that it would be difficult to separate the Sports Hall from the Dolphin Centre, due to the structural issues, together with the fact that the Sports Hall was already nearly 40 years old, and was an add on to the Dolphin Centre, where all the services originated from.  He had also tasked Officers to communicate with the Council’s preferred operator of the new Leisure Centre for their requirements for a unique selling point for Bromsgrove, which would provide a greater income that simply a Sports Hall, which would not be able to sustain prudential borrowing on its own.

 

Councillor Whittaker concluded his presentation by advising Members that the report before them had been well aired at Cabinet when the reluctant decision not to proceed was taken.  The report had also been seen and discussed in detail at the Overview and Scrutiny Board, when all comments had been considered.  Councillor Whittaker then handed over to Councillor Cooper for clarification in respect of the financial implications.

 

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor B. Cooper, Portfolio Holder for Finance advised that he had looked at the Sports Hall project from the point of view as to whether it was in the interests of the council tax payers of the Council to fund it.  He highlighted that the financial information was summarised at page 74 of the agenda papers and referred to paragraph 4.2 which gave the various build options and costs.  Paragraph 4.5 showed the best predicted revenue from the sports hall, £70k per annum, which meant that the Council could borrow prudentially up to £1.9m from the Public Works Loans Board towards the project.  Unfortunately this would still leave a funding shortfall of between £1.95 and £2.835m.

 

Members’ attention was drawn to paragraph 4.4 which showed that £1.8 m may be realised from the sale of land on School Drive.  This was included in the business case for the new Leisure Centre and when the money was received it would go towards paying off the loan on it, to reduce the borrowing costs.  Therefore this was not available for building a sports hall.

 

 

Following presentation of the report Councillor M. Thompson referred to a letter which had been published in the local paper, from NBHS School Governors who had refuted the suggestion that use of the sports hall for 48 weeks had ever been an option.  Councillor Thompson suggested that the item should be deferred until clarification of this could be made, as it appeared there was some confusion and the information before Members was contradictory to what the Governors had advised.  The Leader commented that negotiations with BAM were continuing and that this did not impact on the decision that would be made at this meeting.

 

Members went on to discuss a number of areas in more detail, including:

 

·         Whether consideration had been given to giving the sports hall to BAM or another operator who may be able to make it more financially viable.

·         Clarification as to whether the decision was being made as to whether the Council could not afford to build a sports hall or whether it did not need a sports hall.

·         The need to look at all options before a decision was made and the lack of information in respect of other options.

·         The need for the Council to take the views of its residents into consideration when making a decision such as this.

·         The need for the facility to stay open for residents.

·         Councillor R. Jenkins highlighted a scheme from the Lawn Tennis Association which was looking for indoor courts and the availability of funding from them.  She questioned whether this had been considered.

 

Councillor C. Hotham suggested that the idea of someone else operating the sports hall was a good one as from the revenue figures in the report the Council would not be able to raise sufficient borrowing.  However, he raised a query within the report and drew Members’ attention to Page 109 of the agenda pack where it stated that the achievable income was £20k per court per annum, which with four courts was significantly more than the £70k quoted within the report and which would increase the amount of prudential borrowing available to the Council.

 

Councillor L. Mallett supported the deferral of the report until all options had been considered and also highlighted a number of areas which needed to be investigated further before a decision could be made on this matter.  He reiterated the comments in respect of whether the decision was being made because the Council could not afford to build a sports hall or whether it was because it did not believe it needed one.  He reminded Members that there was support for the Sports Hall from the public and it was the Council’s duty to ensure that all avenues had been explored before making a decision.  This was particularly important in light of the fact that there appeared to be a discrepancy within the financial information provided in the report.

 

The Chairman called for the meeting to be adjourned.

 

When the meeting resumed, Councillor Whittaker, as Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services acknowledged that the figures in the Mace Options Appraisal were ambiguous and that as a result he would agree to a deferment of the report for one month.

 

Councillor Whittaker then went on to make reference to the possibility that it might be possible for third parties who wanted to take over the site to come forward.

 

The debate continued and Members generally felt that a month was insufficient time for such a process to be put in place as there was a need to follow the appropriate procurement process in order to protect the Council’s position.

 

The Chairman called for a further adjournment in order for the Group Leaders to clarify mattes with the relevant officers.

 

After a short adjournment and after taking professional advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer, S151 Officer and Chief Executive, the Leader formally accepted the unconditional deferral of the report and advised that the item would be brought back to the July Council meeting and that inviting expressions of interest from third parties at this stage was not a viable option.

Supporting documents: