Agenda item

To consider a report by the Leisure Centres General Manager.

(Councillor T D Sanderson, Executive Councillor for Healthy and Active Lifestyles was in attendance for this item).

The Panel considered a report by the General Manager, One Leisure (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) outlining proposals to re-model the St Ivo Leisure Centre. Members noted that the proposals were intended to reduce the Centre’s net operating costs and to increase admissions and participation levels to meet both Government and Council health agenda targets. The Panel were then acquainted with details of four options for the future of the Centre and the rationale and anticipated demand for them.

In reviewing the contents of the report, Members commented on the timing of the proposal given that the Council was currently seeking to achieve significant savings over the course of the next few years. In response, the Head of Financial Services drew attention to the financial information contained within the report including the anticipated rate of return and payback period. Members were advised that the proposals were expected to turn the Centre's annual operating deficit into a significant profit within a three year period and would also contribute to the Council's budget reduction plan. Details of the expected financial contribution from specific elements of the proposal were tabled for information (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book).

Arising from the report the Panel raised a number of questions relating to the rate of return which had been achieved from the re-development of One Leisure St Neots, whether any investment should be undertaken if proposals to establish a Leisure Trust were to be pursued and the methods used to predict compound growth. Following a question about the component activities within each of the four proposals, the General Manager agreed to circulate the rationale behind the packaging of activities and the cost of individual elements within the schemes. Members were also informed that there was some degree of interdependency between some of the components.

Councillor M F Shellens stated that he supported the re-development but expressed concerns about its timing in the current economic climate. He suggested that it might be appropriate to delay the project to enable consideration to be given to possible changes in the future income forecasts. Members then queried the level of admissions that would be required for the project to break-even. It was suggested that this information should be included within the report prior to its submission to the Cabinet. It was further suggested that following receipt of tenders for the redevelopment a review should be undertaken of the building costs and economic conditions.

Other matters that were discussed included the efficiency and reliability of the heating and ventilation equipment within the existing facility and the timescale for their replacement, the activities of private sector operators within the District, the current capacity of the Burgess Hall and the potential for income to be disrupted during the construction process. Members also queried whether consideration had been given to the use of solar power, grey water recycling and rain water re-harvesting within the building design. In response, the General Manager explained that it was intended that environmentally friendly initiatives would be pursued as part of the proposals. Such measures had previously been considered as part of the re-modelling of One Leisure St Neots.

The Panel was informed of the conclusions reached by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Social Well-Being) who had suggested that consideration should be given to the provision of a smaller rifle facility within the development. Being mindful of the information presented by Mr T Smith earlier in the meeting (Minute No. 10/7 refers), Members of the Economic Well-Being Panel were of the view that separate plans should be developed that incorporated shooting facilities. These plans might be pursued if the Rifle and Pistol Club were able to make a significant contribution to the cost of construction. Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

  that the Cabinet be recommended to

a.  proceed with Option B to develop One Leisure St Ives, subject to additional information being provided on the attendance levels required to break-even, recent trends in occupancy levels, the interdependency of various elements of the proposals and more detailed information on income and cost forecasts;

b.  obtain separate designs incorporating facilities for the St Ives Rifle and Piston Club for development subject to the Rifle and Pistol Club making a significant contribution to the capital costs; and

c.  undertake a review of the tenders received for the re-development to assess the building costs involved and economic conditions at the time.