Meeting documents

There were no declarations of interest.

To note the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 February 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2019 were noted.

The Committee considered the work programme attached to the reports pack.

RESOLVED

That the work programme be noted

To resolve that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

RESOLVED

That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Clarification of questions in relation to the business case including verbal update on procurement.

At its previous meeting, the Committee sought clarity over a number of points in relation to the Chiltern Lifestyle Centre Business Plan. The report and appendix attached to the agenda pack provided responses to these points.

The following issues were highlighted by Members and discussed:

·       In relation to the £4m gap in funding noted in the previous meetings reports pack it was explained that a residual land value of 2.4m had been identified for enabling development and a potential option for Sport England to grant aid on the basis of  adding value to the project which could significantly help to bridge the £1.6m funding gap. Based on a depreciation and replacement value the value of the current centre had been valued at £4m with the land valued at £1.4m and the building £2.6m. It was clarified that £2.6m was not the market value of the building, this would be significantly less. It had been a prudent assumption to write down the value of £9m which had been given in April 2016.

·       Discussions had continued with the County Council over the library; however it was noted that as both assets would be held by the new unitary authority from April 2020 there would not be the requirement to surrender current leases after that time.

·       The decision on the final business case, appointment of leisure operator and main contractor would be referred to the Shadow Executive in autumn 2019 for agreement to whatever the Council decides. It was clarified that following scrutiny at this sub-committee, the reports would be considered by Cabinet prior to going on to the Shadow Executive shortly after. This would feed in to the Medium Term Financial Strategy of the new authority. It was suggested that the presentation to the Shadow Executive be added to the work programme. At the time of the next meeting the calendar of meetings for the Shadow Executive would be known.

·       It was confirmed that the leisure operators were bidding for each leisure centre as part of a whole bid and were also required to present a variant bid for the existing portfolio for the next 15 years. The estimated costs detailed in the current business case for extending the life of Chiltern Pools by 15 years were a £600k annual management fee as well as annual capital costs of £200k.

·       It was clarified that the present membership level for Chiltern Pools was approximately 2000. A latent demand survey identified that the year 3 membership level of the new facility would be 3,413, whilst soft market testing indicated 4,400 was achievable. The large increase was expected due to the increased range of facilities. Indicative bids submitted supported these assumptions.

·       It was reaffirmed to Members that the risk would lay with the leisure operator should the number of members differ significantly to those estimated in their bids. The procurement process was robust and due diligence would be used when assessing market history, financial strength, track record, and quality of those companies who had made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Committee was presented with a report which detailed the refurbishment options for the Chiltern Pools and comments were invited to assist in making recommended future actions for Cabinet consideration.

The following issues were discussed:

·       As noted above, extending the life of the existing centre had estimated costs of £600k annual management and a £200k annual fee. Urgent works had been identified as being required to curtain walling, defects to the pool tank and surrounds, replacement heating system, replacement of the domestic hot and water system, new ventilation system, replacement moveable floor to the diving/teaching pool, and new roof coverings and insulation which would result in a significant loss of income to the operator for the time closed.

·       A specialist leisure consultant had identified a range of refurbishment options and these were detailed in the confidential report provided to Members. All options involved the creation of a single new entrance to the centre to improve user flow and maximise entry control and differed in scale, price and viability.

·       The most financially viable option would cost in the region of £14.5m to deliver. However the access arrangements would cause a complex customer journey and would present a challenge for wheelchair users and adults accompanying small children. There would also be an estimated project shortfall of approximately £3.93 million.

·       Any refurbishment would not be eligible for Sport England funding nor redevelopment of the site for residential purposes.

·       It was questioned whether all activities needed to be included in the offer and a Member queried whether the climbing wall provided economic value. The climbing wall was said to be a key attraction in bringing people to the centre and other members identified that with proper marketing, and the introduction of climbing as an Olympic sport take up would increase.

·       With aging equipment and facilities, unexpected costs could also arise. An example of a crack in the pool tank which resulted in it being closed pending investigation at the time of this meeting.

·       It was recognised that were the unitary authority faced with annual £800k costs to keep the centre in operation there was a realistic risk that Amersham would lose its leisure facilities.

·       Members accepted that should the business model for a new centre be viable and cover costs, as well as provide an income this would be supported over refurbishing the existing centre. Members further praised the current operator for keeping the centre in operation for as long as it had.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

A report was considered which detailed the refurbishment options available to the Council with regards to the Chesham and Chalfont leisure facilities to mitigate the potential loss of customer base to the Chiltern Lifestyle Centre. A specialist leisure consultant had undertaken a review of existing centres and the procurement of the Chiltern leisure operator contract required bidders to provide detailed plans as to how they will invest in the two centres to mitigate the impact of the proposed new Chiltern Lifestyle Centre.

Members discussed the contents of the leisure consultant’s detailed report and noted that any cost of remodelling the centres would be included in the loan requested from the Public Works Loan Board.

Following a query from a Member, it was confirmed that each centre does have dual use arrangements with its local school although this was not presently taken up at the Chalfont centre. Further conversations would be held to encourage this.

Members further recognised that there were a range of marketing opportunities in the local areas and marketed correctly this could prevent a significant loss of user numbers to the new centre.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted

A report was considered which sought Cabinet permission to undertake a public consultation to appropriate the marked site at King George V Playing Fields and the site to the rear of the electricity substation on Chiltern Avenue from open space to a planning purpose, subject to the grant of planning permission by the Planning Committee and consideration by Cabinet of any representations made during the public consultation. The land was in the ownership of the Council, designated as Public Open Space and would require appropriation as set out in section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 to change the purpose of land to enable the development to proceed. Appropriation would override any third party rights and easements over the land.

Members noted that the Council would advertise its intention to appropriate for two consecutive weeks by placing a notice in the local press and placing a notice on the adjacent land. The public consultation period required was at least 21 days. Cabinet would then consider any objections following the consultation.