Agenda item

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 deputy be asked to attend a meeting to take Members through the funding options as this was a critical issue. 

The PLO referred Members to page 8 of the report which set out the facility options based on affordability. Options shaded green were positive additions and should be included, if possible.  Those shaded amber, whilst having a relatively small adverse effect on affordability, could perhaps meet a strategic need or be important for the district; no strong recommendations on these were being made by the consultant.   Red options would have a strong negative impact on the affordability of the project. 

In response to the Chairman, it was confirmed that the soft-play or similar facility and café could be crucial to the centre’s success.  The PLO stated that the consultants’ assessment that a soft-play facility would have a negative impact had been based on an unsupervised, non-paying facility located in a multi-purpose room.  However, the Elmbridge facility had allowed Officers to see another model, this one being located by the entrance and café, with access to a terraced outside area, and access charged for.  Officers would challenge the consultants on this. Councillor Walker commented that there was a huge demand for this type of facility. Members requested that Officers visit a ‘Clip and Climb’ facility and provide feedback to the Group at the next meeting.

The DECA advised that each of the ten options set out in the report had a capital cost associated with it.  The five-a-side pitches were sensible additions for both financial and strategic sports provision reasons.  The ‘Clip and Climb’ facility had positive ratings. However, Officers had not seen one and would need to talk to operators.  Councillor P M Beresford commented that there was now no other children’s soft-play facility in the area.  In respect of the 3G pitch, the consultants’ recommendation was that, rather than creating a new facility, it would be better to work with Christ Church Academy which already had a site with planning permission for a 3G pitch, and the requisite changing facilities already constructed.  This was the site of a former artificial pitch which would need to be re-laid. 

The PLO advised that a sauna and steam-room could be provided at a modest cost. Although it would not generate income, the existing steam-room at Dover was an important facility for customers and it was recommended that a new one should be provided. The DECA advised that the feedback from Ramsgate on toning tables was that they were a popular facility.  The costs of installing them at Ramsgate had been low as an existing room had been converted.  Providing them at Dover would clearly cost more as it would necessitate an increase in the floor space of the new building.  Furthermore, given local demographic profiles, it was possible that Deal would be a more appropriate location.  Your Leisure, the operators of the Ramsgate facility, was of the view that there was not the capacity to sustain two toning table facilities in the district. 

Less research had been done by the consultants to assess the local market for a spa facility than for the other facilities because it had been a late addition.  Councillor Walker commented that any assessment would need to take account of future demand created by major housing developments.  A long-term view needed to be taken on this issue, considering what leisure facilities were likely to attract people to live in the district.  The PLO added that feedback from two existing facilities indicated that a separate entrance would be needed.  Another option would be to add the spa at a later date.

To summarise, the DECA advised that the options shaded red would clearly add significant costs and should not be included in the facilities mix.  Amber options would require more discussions with the consultants.  Of the green shaded options, the ‘Clip and Climb’ facility would need further investigation. 

The Chairman summarised the Group’s views on options as he understood them. The new centre would have a main pool and a combined learner/confidence pool (with moveable floor).  Subject to further information, a soft-play facility should be included.  A spa was an attractive but expensive option.  On this matter, and in response to questions, the PLO advised that the Ramsgate spa made money.  If the sauna and steam-room were to be incorporated into a spa, customers would have to pay for the facility which was currently included in the swimming charge.  There were few spa facilities in the district, with one of the existing ones due to close.  It was agreed that the consultants should be requested to carry out further research in order for the Group to make an informed decision on a spa facility.

It was agreed to note the report.