Agenda item

To receive a briefing (including financial information) on the option of including a spa facility.  A spa facility options summary will follow. 

The Principal Leisure Officer (PLO) referred Members to the briefing paper which summarised the likely impact that the provision of a spa facility would have on the cost, design and location of the leisure centre at Whitfield.   If Members wished to take the idea further and obtain specialist advice, this was likely to cost in the region of £10,000.  The Head of Finance confirmed that the cost of adding a spa would be in the region of £1.5 million which would require additional borrowing.  However, it was estimated that a spa would generate £80,000 in annual revenue which would be sufficient to service borrowing of £1.5 million.

Councillor M D Conolly argued that, within the context of the entire project, the cost of the spa was relatively insignificant.  He pointed out that four of the nine potential operators consulted had indicated an interest in operating a spa.  A further three were potentially interested but required further information. Only two of the nine had indicated no interest, and one of these already operated a spa in Ramsgate.  It was likely, therefore, that this operator viewed the spa unfavourably as it would be a competitor.   In response to Councillor N J Collor, the Group was advised that, of the 558 responses received, only 17 had raised the issue of a spa facility or sauna/steam room improvements.  However, it was acknowledged that the questionnaire had made no reference to the possible inclusion of a spa facility.

The Principal Infrastructure and Delivery Officer (PIDO) reminded Members that the majority of operators wanted the spa included in the first phase of construction.  Potential operators had shown a very positive interest in Kent where most of them were not currently operating.  It was therefore possible that they were being positive about the spa at this stage because they were seeking the business. 

The Head of Finance added that the affordability of the project rested on how much providers were prepared to invest and what the Council could afford to put into it.    The successful operator would pay the Council for running the facility; this would be predicated on how much revenue the operator estimated the centre was likely to generate.  This payment would dictate how much the Council could borrow since it would be used to pay back the loan and interest. 

Councillor P Walker commented that the operators appeared to be dictating what was going to be provided.   He reminded Officers that the new centre was designed to cater for leisure as well as sporting activities.  Whilst he recognised that there had to be a balance, it was essential that the Group considered different ideas and how a high standard of facility might be achieved for the benefit of the public.   He was convinced that a spa would add depth and quality to the centre for what was a relatively modest amount when measured against the overall cost of the project.  Councillor P M Beresford agreed that it was important that the new centre catered for leisure activities.  Mr Peter Ward added that there was little competition elsewhere in the district in terms of spa facilities.  The provision of a spa facility would build on the improvements that were needed to upgrade the existing leisure centre. 

The PIDO advised that the provision of a spa constituted a ‘nice to have’ facility.  On the other hand, the provision of sports facilities was based on evidence obtained from Sport England and governing bodies.   

It was agreed that it be recommended to the Portfolio Holder for Property Management and Public Protection/Cabinet that a further report be commissioned from a specialist consultant to explore the addition of a spa facility.