Agenda and minutes

In the absence of Councillor T J Bartlett, the Democratic Support Officer advised that it was necessary to appoint a Chairman for the meeting.

It was noted that Councillor T J Bartlett had sent an apology for absence.

It was noted that there were no substitute members.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

It was noted that there were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the attached notes of the meeting of the Group held on 31 March 2016.

The notes of the meeting of the Group held on 31 March 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive a briefing on responses received during consultation on the draft Indoor Sports Facility Strategy.

(All representations are available to view via the Council’s consultation portal at http://dover-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal.)

The Principal Infrastructure and Delivery Officer (PIDO) updated Members on the Indoor Sports Facility Strategy (ISFS), public consultation on which had closed on 6 May 2016.  90 responses had been received raising, amongst other things, issues surrounding swimming, location, sports halls, basketball, use by, and of, schools, operational management and equalities.  It was difficult to summarise the responses which had been so varied.  However, the results of the consultation would be presented to Cabinet on 4 July and responses to all consultee comments included as an appendix to the report.  In response to the Chairman, it was confirmed that the report would set out the proposed changes to the ISFS as a result of the consultation, and contain a summary of the main issues raised by consultees.  Members were advised that Officers working on areas such as finance and public consultation would be invited to attend future meetings where appropriate.   

It was agreed that the verbal update be noted.

To consider feedback from the visit to leisure centres at Watford, St Albans, Flitwick and Ramsgate which took place on 20 April.

The Principal Leisure Officer (PLO) advised that the Group had visited three leisure centres on 20 April and another on 5 May. 

Following the visits, Members’ views on the facility options had been sought, and a summary of these could be found on page 16 of the agenda.   Five-a-side size 3G pitches had proved popular and were viewed as a core facility.  The Chairman commented that a 3G pitch or pitches would be essential were the sports hall provision to be reduced from eight courts to four given that football was currently one of the most popular activities in the sports hall.  However, consideration would need to be given to Sport England guidance governing separate changing-rooms.  The PLO advised that, whilst Sport England preferred separate changing-rooms for full-size pitches, the pitches proposed would not be full-sized, and specification of changing facilities was therefore open to negotiation. 

Pages 9 to 15 of the agenda set out the feedback received from Members on the individual leisure centres visited.  In summary, Members had felt generally less positive about traditional climbing walls than ‘Clip and Climb’ walls, a new concept put forward by the consultants.  Members who had had personal experience of the latter praised them and viewed them as potentially good income generators.   The layout of gyms and lighting (particularly natural lighting) were also seen as important factors in a successful design.

The Director of Environment and Corporate Assets (DECA) commented that the visits had proved very useful in identifying potential design/architectural problems, as well as learning about the most effective finishes, wear and tear, etc.  For example, although there had been generally positive comments about the leisure centre at Watford, one of the areas of concern had been the relative lack of visibility around the swimming area.  The St Albans centre was an upmarket facility serving an affluent area, whose ambitions were to compete with the private sector.   The Flitwick centre was a newly opened, mid-range facility, with two 5-a-side 3G pitches and a gym which was of similar quality to that of St Albans’.   The facility at Ramsgate had a different offer, but it had been interesting to see what was available locally.

The PLO reported that Officers had also undertaken a fifth leisure centre visit to Elmbridge on the outskirts of London.   This centre served a mixed demographic and had a core facility mix which was similar to Dover’s, although it had an 8-court sports hall.   The centre had not been funded by Sport England.  It was housed in a 10-year old building which had worn well.  Two key elements had come out of the visit for Officers.   Firstly, the operators had advised that, in hindsight, they would have reduced the sports hall to four courts. The 8-court hall was under-used and therefore not generating as much income as predicted.   Secondly, a soft-play facility was incorporated into a glazed area adjacent to the entrance and café where children could be seen but not heard.   This was a good facility which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider possible core facilities and feedback obtained from members of the Group regarding additional commercial facilities.

The PIDO referred Members to page 3 of the Facility Options report.  There had been some slippage in timings, and Officers would now be making recommendations to Cabinet on the facilities mix, options, etc in September.  The PLO advised that the process of soft market testing and exploring operational management options would commence at the end of the week.  Public consultation on facilities and options were anticipated to take place in the first two weeks of July.  The Chairman commented that the timings were tight. 

On accessibility, the PIDO advised that Kent County Council’s (KCC) Public Health team had advised that the July Cabinet report should contain a preliminary assessment of this matter, identifying whether the proposals in the ISFS met the needs of protected groups.  It was confirmed that protected groups would be invited to take part in the consultation, the results of which would accompany the September Cabinet report.  Councillor P Walker stressed that the public needed to have confidence that the Council was looking at this issue, and attached importance to it.

Councillor N J Collor raised concerns about the amount of car parking, stating that at least 300 car parking spaces plus coach bays would be needed.  The PIDO advised that the proposed parking provision had been arrived at on the basis of initial advice from KCC.  It was provisional and could be increased if necessary.  In response to queries, it was clarified that the swimming-pool would be the only 8-lane competition standard pool in Kent.  The starting point for assessment of facilities was the existing mix at Dover Leisure Centre.  Little or no interest had been expressed in diving during development of the draft ISFS, which had been informed by engagement with the governing bodies of various sports.  In addition, only a very small number of the ISFS consultation responses had mentioned diving, and the provision of diving facilities had therefore been discounted.

Members were referred to page 7 of the report which contained an affordability analysis.  The PIDO advised that the funding gap of £2.276 million assumed that Sport England would provide some funding and the remainder would be found from the Council’s capital reserves and borrowing.  The Chairman advised that £2 million had been set aside from reserves for this purpose.  The question was whether to allocate less from reserves and borrow more or vice versa.  In his view the funding issue was firmly within the Group’s remit to consider, particularly as he assumed that the report to Cabinet in September would include funding information.  Councillor Walker agreed, arguing that it was imperative for the Group to know the financial implications of the options being considered.  Transparency was essential as the public needed to understand why some options were not affordable.  Mr P Ward added that this also applied to the choice of site.  The public would need to be persuaded as to why a particular site had been chosen.  The Chairman suggested that the Director of Finance, Housing and Community and his  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive a briefing on the following:

·         Project Programme, up to the point of completing the feasibility appraisal (report attached)

·         Consultation with key stakeholders

·         Public consultation

·         Report to Cabinet

In response to Councillor Collor, the DECA advised that information on the acquisition of land for the site would be shared with the Group at the appropriate time.  Sequential testing in support of the planning application was currently taking place in order to investigate whether any other sites in the town centre were suitable.  Planners were beginning to work on an application for the Whitfield site which was Cabinet’s preferred location, and were aware of the project timetable. 

The PIDO confirmed that Officers would report to the Group’s 30 June meeting on ‘Clip and Climb’, soft-play and spa facilities.  Members would also have sight of the public consultation questionnaires and could provide feedback on them.  It was clarified that there would be two workshops: one focused on user groups and the other with stakeholders.  Councillor Walker stressed that the information given to the public should be user-friendly and include costs.  It was important that the public should be under no illusions that there was a bottomless pit of funding for the project. The PLO confirmed that the consultation would include evidence so that the public could understand how Officers had arrived at the core options and their needs analyses.  In response to the Chairman, the PLO confirmed that a communication plan was in place to address any criticism from the press and social media.

It was agreed that the verbal update be noted.

To consider future meeting dates.

Due to the EU referendum on 23 June which affected room and Officer availability, it was agreed that the next meeting would be held on 30 June.