As requested at its meeting held on 19 May 2016, to receive feedback from Officers on a visit to a ‘Clip and Climb’ facility, and a briefing on the additional research undertaken in respect of the potential provision of a spa facility.
Minutes:
The Principal Leisure Officer (PLO) advised that, as requested at the last meeting, Officers had visited a ‘Clip and Climb’ facility at Chelsea. There were only 15 such facilities in the country; of these only one was located in a leisure centre. Officers were excited by the quality and potential of the facility which catered for children from age 4 through to adults. The operators in Chelsea had advised that peak periods for use were weekends, holidays and after school. Business was so buoyant that they had met their business plan targets for the fifth year of operation by the third year. They were also looking to fill off-peak periods with corporate events and fitness class programmes. Officers fully supported the consultants’ recommendation that ‘Clip and Climb’ be added to the facility mix for the new leisure centre.
In response to questions, the PLO advised that she believed the facility was suitable for people with disabilities, although this would need to be verified. Comparisons had been made with Exeter which had a 150- square metre facility, similar in size to the one proposed for Dover. The consultants estimated that net revenue of £80,000 per annum could be achieved at the Dover facility. The Principal Infrastructure and Delivery Officer (PIDO) pointed out that Dover’s would also have the advantage of being the only one in Kent. A facility of this size had a user capacity of 35 people and required 7 members of staff. It was confirmed that the equipment could easily be dismantled to free up space for other activities.
In respect of the spa facility, the PIDO advised that the consultants had done some further research but were not experts in this field. Their initial view was that a spa would add to the capital costs and affordability gap. Furthermore, it was not meeting a sporting need and could potentially add risk to the overall affordability of the project.
The Director of Environment and Corporate Assets (DECA) recognised that the provision of a spa would not meet a sporting need, but it would be an attractive offer for local people. Whilst a spa could make a valuable contribution to profit margins, it was accepted that it was a risky proposition. The PIDO advised that there had been a lot of interest from potential operators but, of these, fewer than half had expressed an interest if a spa were included. Those who were interested had requested more detailed information.
Councillor M D Conolly reiterated that he had been impressed with the Ramsgate spa which had proved a resounding success. His view was that the idea should not be discounted until the costs of the project were known. Even then, it might be a gamble worth taking. Councillor N J Collor agreed.
The PLO advised that the operators who had expressed an interest in the spa had indicated that they would want it included at the build stage rather than added on afterwards. The PIDO added that there would be cost and layout implications at the initial stages of the project. Further research would be needed, probably by specialist consultants who would have to be tendered for, and this would inevitably delay the project programme. The DECA added that refinements would be made to the design following consultation, which could see strong support for a spa. Moreover, it might not be necessary to engage another set of consultants as it was possible the architects could advise on layout. Councillor Conolly commented that the matter could be considered at the next meeting when a clearer picture on costs and progress should be available.
It was agreed that the update be noted.