Issue - meetings

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction).

Since despatch of the agenda, there has been an amendment to recommendation 2.6 of this report:

2.6  That members note that in the first year, 2015/2016, there may be a shortfall in revenue funding of up to £200,000 arising from the servicing of borrowing prior to the opening of the new Leisure Centre. Members will in due course be asked to approve funding of this amount from General Fund Balances. This amount will replenished in full in the following year.

Council was advised of the outcome of the procurement process in relation to the development of a new Leisure Centre facility for the Borough on the site of the former Council Offices adjacent to Argents Mead. Members were informed that the Scrutiny Commission, following a detailed debate, had supported the recommendations. A summary of the questions raised at Scrutiny Commission, and the answers given, was circulated to Members, to assist the debate and avoid unnecessary repetition. In response to the concern that the Scrutiny Commission had not been informed of the companies involved which were referred to in the report as ‘Bidder A’ and ‘Bidder B’, and as a clear recommendation had been made by the scrutiny Commission, it was acknowledged that it was now expedient to reveal that Bidder A was DC Leisure and Bidder B was SLM.

Attention was drawn to an amended recommendation 2.6 which had been circulated following further negotiations and cited the shortfall in the first year as £200,000, which had been reduced from the £360,000 estimated in the original version of the report. This had been achieved by the contractor foregoing part of its profit margin in year 1. It was stated that a profiling document would be issued to members when finalised.

During discussion, reference was made to the following:

• That instead of the historic cost to the authority or small income (currently) for running the current leisure centre, there would be a considerable income stream for 20 years;
• The apparent insufficient spectator seating to enable the pool to be suitable for hosting national ASA competitions (with the pool being suitable for local competitions and for training and club purposes);
• The need to keep pricing reasonable for users of the facilities – in response it was confirmed that the Council would retain (as now) a control over pricing;
• The cost of the office space and the need for it – in response to this, it was reported that office space was part of the management agreement;
• The importance of a newer, more environmentally friendly building;
• The hard work over several months in order to manage the procurement process;
• The vast amount of consultation that had been undertaken during the course of the procurement process;
• The employment of an Independent Consultant and expert in leisure provision to advise on the selection process;

In response to concerns regarding the report in the press about the pool being unsuitable for competitions, the Independent Consultant explained that there had been a number of aspects to consider in planning the new centre and the need for 250 spectator seats had to be weighed up against other facilities which would have been lost in exchange for this seating, particularly when national competitions with large numbers of spectators would be rare.

Councillor Batty, seconded by Councillor Bessant, MOVED that the item be deferred to receive further details on the implications of the revenue model and on the outcome of the most recent consultation exercise. Upon being put to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 371