Agenda item

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction).

Members received a presentation regarding the proposals for a new Leisure Centre on Argents Mead. It was reported that final submissions had been received from two bidders, who for this purpose had been labelled ‘bidder A’ and ‘bidder B’ and whose names had been withheld to enable Members to objectively discuss the schemes in public session. The report and discussion thereon provided evidence to members of the strong record of both companies and the independent consultant had confirmed that both bids were of extremely high quality and either would be an excellent choice.

Some Members felt that the names of the companies should be provided in order to have an informed discussion, but upon voting to move into private session, the motion was LOST and the meeting continued in public.

Councillor Taylor entered the meeting at 7.25pm.

Members were pleased to see the proposals and supportive of using the site of the former council offices. During debate, the following points were discussed:

• Concern regarding car parking on site and in the vicinity. In response members were assured that there was more availability than at the current leisure centre;
• The hope that the town centre would see a higher footfall as a result of the leisure centre being closer to the town centre;
• The changing trends in playing squash, which had led to none of the companies interested in building and operating the leisure centre wishing to include squash courts and the resulting arrangement with Hinckley Squash Club, the intention of which was to increase the number and improve the quality of squash players in the area;
• Action to be taken in the event of underperformance by the contractor. In response it was noted that there would be a termination clause in place by way of protection;
• Protection should the operator go into liquidation. In response it was stated that the leisure centre building would remain in our ownership and HBBC would be able to operate it or appoint a new operator;
• The office space within the building, which would provide space for 16 workstations;
• The branding of the leisure centre and control of staffing. It was agreed that this would be discussed;
• The duration of the contract would be 20 years, but the repayment would be over 30 years;
• The contract had been drafted so that any delay in build would not result in slippage of payment;
• Detailed discussions about the operation of the centre would not take place until after the contract had been confirmed by Council.

A member proposed that Councillor Batty be added to the project team. Officers agreed to discuss this.

In response to a member’s question about the matter coming back to Council, should further work with the preferred bidder not be satisfactory, it was explained that Council on 21 January would be resolving to appoint the other bidder as reserve.

It was moved, seconded and

RESOLVED –

(i)         the high quality of tender submissions be noted;

(ii)        the selection of Bidder A as the Council’s preferred bidder be supported and RECOMMENDED to Council, with Bidder B appointed as reserve;

(iii)       the income stream, additional capital budget requirement, increase in the council’s authorised borrowing limit and potential shortfall in revenue in the first year be noted;

(iv)       the programme for delivery of the new leisure centre be noted;

(v)        the arrangements for the project team be noted.