Agenda and draft minutes

It was noted that apologies had been received from Councillors O C de R Richardson and C D Zosseder.

To note appointments of substitute members.

It was noted that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillors M Bates and J P Loffman had been appointed as substitute members for Councillors O C de R Richardson and C D Zosseder respectively.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To note the Project Advisory Group’s attached Terms of Reference.  

It was agreed that the Group’s Terms of Reference be noted.

To receive an overview of the project, including:

·        Cabinet’s decision made at its meeting held on 29 July 2024

·        Financial viability and business case

·        The existing and proposed new facility option

The Strategic Project Manager (SPM) advised that the Tides project had been suspended in 2020 due to Covid and picked up again in late 2021.   Challenges – such as the rise in energy and running costs and the global financial crisis - caused by the war in Ukraine had then affected the project.  Officers had turned those challenges into opportunities by taking a fresh approach to delivering the project. 

In July 2024, Cabinet had agreed that a new scheme developed by Alliance Leisure Services should be progressed to Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stage 2, drawing down £420,000 from the Tides Replacement Capital Project budget.  It had also agreed that Alliance Leisure Services should be appointed as the lead delivery partner for the lifetime of the project, securing other professional services as necessary. Finally, the Project Advisory Group (PAG) had been requested to review design options and the cost implications of adding an extra swimming lane and additional leisure water provision to the scheme.  New proposals arising from this investigative work would be taken to Cabinet in January 2025. 

The Head of Finance and Investment (HFI) advised that, whilst the cost of the project had been reduced from £26.6 million in November 2023 to £19.2 million in June 2024, there remained a challenging shortfall of £3 million.  However, this compared very favourably to the shortfall figure of £8.9 million reported to Members in November 2023.  She referred to the presentation and advised Members that the Council supported Your Leisure, the current operators of the centre, with an annual payment of £250,000 in order to keep it afloat.  In contrast, it was predicted that the new centre could generate annual net revenue of £400,000.

Councillor J P Loffman queried whether the revenue required to cover the capital funding deficit would be a Council budget allocation or funded by the expectation of a return from the provider.  The HFI confirmed that the £167,000 shortfall would need to be covered by either the revenue budget or the management fee from the operator.  

The SPM advised that the new facility mix proposals were underpinned by evidence of the district’s strategic need.  There was currently a deficit of six swimming lanes in the district and the proposed mix would help to cover that need. 

Mr Richard Thompson (Hadron Consulting) updated the PAG on the partners/consultants involved in the project.  He explained that RIBA Stage 2 was the second stage of a plan of work that set out the eight stages of delivering a construction project, from definition and briefing through to concept and technical design, manufacturing and construction to handover and use.  Under the new plans, the tennis centre and sports hall would be largely untouched.  

In response to Councillor D G Cronk who asked about disabled access, Mr Thompson advised that good access was critical and the designers were trying to reduce the difference in levels between the car park and the entrance to the new building to help with accessibility.  The existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To receive a briefing on what is happening now and in the short-term with feedback obtained from PAG members, including:

·        Communications and public engagement

·        Operator matters

·        Monitoring financial viability and business case

The SPM advised that public engagement would last for four weeks from 23 September and would involve a series of events and workshops in Deal and Dover.  The Communications Officer advised that the engagement exercise would be publicised via press releases and social media such as Facebook.  In weeks 1 and 2 of the engagement, the communications team would be at Tides at different times and days across the week.  In week 2 they would cover Deal market and the High Street using the Community Roots van.  During week 3 they would be at the Whitfield leisure centre.  The publicity boards would be up at Tides and Deal library (although Officers would not be present) for the duration of the engagement period.  Amongst other things, the plan was for Community Development Officers to drop in to various meetings and to target specific user groups such as those with disabilities.  As well as an online survey, paper copies would be distributed.  A project microsite would also be created, similar to the one set up by Wiltshire Council.

Councillor Blair stressed the importance of reaching the right end-users to ensure that balanced feedback was achieved, including primary and secondary schools and nurseries.   In response, the Communications Officer accepted that, whilst the stakeholder list included schools and local groups, nurseries should also be added to the list.  Councillor S H Beer was critical of the proposed engagement period which was too short and should be a minimum of six weeks and preferably eight weeks in her opinion.  Furthermore, the publicity posters were difficult to read with a coloured background and the text needed to be bigger.  She asked that the Deal Speaking Up group be added to the stakeholder list. 

The SPM explained that this exercise was one of engagement rather than formal public consultation.  Consultation on the then plans for Tides had been carried out two years previously for a longer period.   That consultation had helped Officers arrive at the draft proposals now presented.   The planning application would contain full details of the public engagement.  She added that a four-week period was long enough to cover a range of locations and community groups, and extending the period would delay a report going to Cabinet until February or March which would in turn delay project progress. 

Councillor Beer questioned the use of a survey which implied that people’s comments would be taken on board, whereas communication boards simply presented people with an opportunity to comment.  She expressed an interest in seeing the results.   The SPM responded that a survey helped Officers to collate and review the information/thoughts quickly.  Councillor Bates suggested that communications should be started now given that the engagement period was due to start in six days’ time, adding that parish councils were likely to not be meeting for a while so it was important to get the publicity out to them soon.  The Communications Officer advised that engagement dates, venues, etc would go on the website and be officially launched  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

To discuss the frequency and arrangements for meetings in 2025.

To note that the next meeting will be held at 2.00pm on Thursday, 7 November 2024.

The SPM noted that the next meeting would be held on 7 November, at which point a view would be taken on whether to hold the subsequent meeting in early March.  Councillor Beer welcomed the idea of the PAG receiving regular updates.

RESOLVED: That the verbal report be noted.