To receive a briefing on the current proposed design, highlighting amendments made since the last Project Advisory Group meeting, in particular site layout, parking arrangements, landscaping, accessibility and elevations.
Minutes:
Mr Thomason advised that the layout of the site was almost settled, although he was looking to make additional savings by reducing the footprint of the building. It was estimated that the number of car parking spaces would be 271. The Director of Environment and Corporate Assets (DECA) reported that the Council would be acquiring an additional area of land. The provision of more parking spaces within the site boundary could not be achieved efficiently and would require the building of costly retaining structures for little gain and was therefore best avoided. The proposed layout included space for a spa which would be used for parking in the event that the spa was not built (with the loss of around 20-25 spaces if the spa were built).
The Principal Infrastructure and Delivery Officer (PIDO) advised that the decision had been taken to provide two pool pods rather than a platform lift for disabled access. Not only were these cheaper than a lift but doubling up would allow access during maintenance or repairs.
Mr Thomason advised that it was the intention to remove some glazing from the Clip ‘n’ Climb area and add more glazing to the main elevation to give a lighter, more open feel. In respect of exterior finish, Members were advised that render was the cheapest option, with cladding twice as expensive and brickwork more costly still. Brickwork was low maintenance and would weather well, but would come with long-term maintenance issues. In response to Councillor P Walker who emphasised the importance of minimising running costs, Mr Jepson advised that all three options would achieve the same levels of thermal efficiency. Mr Lucas clarified that the amount of glazing used would affect insulation properties and potentially add to running costs. It was therefore important not to include excessive amounts of glazing.
Mr Thomason advised that it was his aim to achieve the best value for money for the Council, delivering the most cost effective and efficient building possible. He was working closely with Faithful & Gould to ensure that costings were achieved. In his view, the outside of the building should be as neutral as possible and finished in render. That said, there were key features which would give the building the wow factor, such as a steel and timber canopy on the front elevation and a curved reception desk. There would be a wide glazing element to the main entrance, as well as a glass and steel feature staircase.
Mr Jepson commented that GT3 would be exploring how the design of the front of the building could be replicated to other elevations. The report to September Cabinet would confirm the design and cost of the new leisure centre. In the meantime, Members would have an opportunity to comment and to confirm that they were content with the direction being followed. The DECA added that Member input was critical, but not every last detail would come to the PAG.
It was agreed that the new leisure centre should be externally finished in render, in either white or off-white (final colour to be decided).