Allerdale Borough Council

Executive – 13 November 2013

New Swimming Pool and Sports Centre

The Reason for the Decision To update Members on the progress with the

new sports centre project and to obtain authorisation to proceed with the pre-contract stage.

Summary of options considered To refurbish the existing centre and not to

proceed with the project. Recommendations That Members:

(i) Select the preferred site for the new leisure centre as outlined within the report

(ii) Approve the use of the SCAPE Framework for delivery of the project and the contractors as outlined within the report

(iii) Authorise the Corporate Director to award the necessary contracts within the SCAPE Framework and for the necessary Project Management Services as required

(iv) Approve the next stages of the project to include viability, design and development up to securing planning permission and final design and costs (to be presented to a further Executive meeting for approval with contract signing)

(v) Approve a variation in principle to the existing leisure management contract with Carlisle Leisure Limited (CLL) to add the new centre and to extend the existing contract in line with its term for an additional 2 years subject to the negotiation of an acceptable management fee (with the actual variation being agreed by the Corporate Director following consultation with the Chief Executive and the portfolio holder).

Financial / Resource Implications There are a number of financial and resource

implications that are outlined within the body of the report although there are no additional resources implications outside those already agreed by the Council

Legal / Governance Implications There are a number of legal implications

outlined within the report. Community Safety Implications The provision of a new swimming pool new

and leisure centre directly contributes to community safety by providing a range of diversionary activities for all sections of the community and in particular young people

Health and Safety and Risk Management Implications

The main risks to the Council are outlined within the report.

Equality Duty considered / Impact Assessment completed

Yes

Wards Affected All The contribution this decision would make to the Council’s priorities

The new swimming pool and sports centre is a key project outlined within the Council Plan and contributes to all of the Council’s priorities as outlined within the report.

Is this a Key Decision Yes

Portfolio Holder Lead Officer

Councillor Barbara Cannon – Deputy Leader (Finance and Assets) Councillor Mike Heaslip – Locality Services Paul Shackley – Corporate Director Charles Holmes – Head of Community Services

Report Implications (Please delete where applicable).

Community Safety Y Employment (external to the Council) Y

Financial Y Employment (internal) N

Legal Y Partnership Y

Social Inclusion Y Asset Management Y

Equality Duty Y Health and Safety Y

Background papers: Council Plan 2012-2015 Budget Report to Executive (March 2013) and Council (March 2013) Sport England Strategy 2012-2017 Neil Allen Associates - West Cumbria Sports Facilities Analysis (2008) Structural report – A.L Daines Limited July 2012 Facility Mix Consultation Report – July 2013 Allerdale Parking Review Report – Alan Baxter Associates – November 2012 Appendices: Appendix 1: FMG Business Case Report Appendix 2-4: Site Plans Appendix 5: BMG Consultation Report Appendix 6: Robertsons Gateway 2 Report Appendix 7: Risk Register Appendix 8: Scape Project Process Report

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Council has prioritised a new or refurbished swimming pool and leisure centre for Workington within the Council Plan (Council Commitment to Local Communities 2012-2015). The refresh of the plan for 2013/14 identified the need for a new centre at an estimated cost of £9m and this was subsequently approved as part of the capital programme by the Executive (February 2013) and then by Council (March 2013).

1.2 Work has been progressing on a number of fronts to progress the scheme and this report has two purposes. The first is to update Members on the current status of the project, the second to take decisions relating to a number of issues that are outlined within the report.

2.0 Strategic Need 2.1 Local authorities have traditionally provided leisure and sporting facilities for local

communities. This provision started as open space provision with the more traditional municipal swimming baths. More recently Council facilities have expanded to cater to other aspects of the health and fitness market. Councils often provide facilities at an affordable rate that the market has traditionally not provided. Perhaps the best example of this is the local municipal swimming pool. There is a need for a range of facilities within West Cumbria and these are detailed in a number of documents including an analysis of sports facilities carried out by Neil Allen Associates in 2008 and the more updated business case report from FMG Limited (Appendix 1, Section 1) commissioned by the Council that built on the previous report. In addition, the Council has recently commissioned two further reports tied into the development of the Local Plan that will result in updated playing pitch and recreation strategies. The proposal to develop a new leisure centre is forming part of these strategies.

2.2 The Council currently operates three indoor leisure facilities. They are the existing Workington Leisure Centre, Keswick Spa pool and Cockermouth Leisure Centre. The Council also operates The Wave at Maryport and recently invested funding to develop the “Clip and Climb” centre there making it a further indoor leisure facility.

2.3 The Government, through Sport England produced a new Youth and Community Sport Strategy in 2012. The strategy outlined its aspirations for the country as a whole:

• See more people taking on and keeping a sporting habit for life;

• Create more sporting opportunities for young people;

• Nurture and develop talent;

• Provide the right facilities in the right places;

• Support local authorities and unlock local funding;

• Ensure real opportunities for communities.

2.4 In addition a number of Governing Bodies’ strategies lay out how they are going to develop specific sports in partnership with local authorities and other organisations. The proposal to provide the new centre underpins a number of these strategies as explained within this report and the background papers.

2.5 As mentioned previously the Council has included the provision of a new swimming pool and leisure centre as a key action in the Council Plan and has made provision for it in the Capital Strategy and programme. The new centre will directly contribute to the Council’s priorities.

2.6 The Council, as part of the development of its Local Plan has recently commissioned a playing pitch review and the development of a Recreation Strategy. The provision of the new swimming pool and leisure centre is in line with this approach. The new strategy will outline the recreation needs of the Borough as a whole and will inform the Council’s future provision in the Borough’s main towns and settlements particularly in relation to council priorities beyond 2014/15.

3.0 Local Context 3.1 The FMG Report (Appendix 1, Section 2) explains in detail the local context that

applies to leisure provision in Allerdale. The report goes into some detail about the local population demographics and break down. The report also highlights as part of the local context consideration the potential sites identified for the new centre.

3.2 The information contained within this section of the report has been built in to the site selection process and also considered as part of the business plan section and relevant figures.

4.0 Existing Facility 4.1 The existing leisure centre located at Moorclose comprises of two separate and

individually resourced buildings in the form of a sports centre and a pool complex. The swimming pool opened in 1970 and the sports centre in 1978.

Current Facilities:

4.2 The Sports Centre comprises a four court main hall, two court practice hall, two court main hall balcony, separate bowls/boxing hall (originally a rifle range) large open plan gym with 80 stations, separate heavy weights/resistance gym, 30 bike spinning studio, skate store, 4 squash courts of which one is glass backed and has capacity for spectators and one contains a soft play installation. The centre has Individual dry change for male and female downstairs and individual male and female WC’s upstairs. There are public circulation spaces in the entrance foyer, to the squash courts and to the gym spaces upstairs. Office accommodation is downstairs and contains a very small reception hatch and one large open plan office and three small self-contained ones – there also staff WC’s off this space. There are a number of small rooms and stores and one large equipment store off the main hall. M&E plant for the sports centre is contained in a separate plant room with external access. In addition there is a small, non-functioning lift for first floor access from the main foyer. The sports centre has its own large car park with capacity for around 200 cars. In addition there is an external changing facility for footballers using the grass pitches.

4.3 The Swimming Pool comprises a 25m 6 lane main pool and a smaller 15m learner

pool. In addition there are separate male and female wet change areas which contain individual and group changing facilities, WC’s and showers. There is a large open plan reception area with male and female spectator WC’s off and a small office/storage space. The pool and learner pool both have first floor spectator balconies the main pool having seating for around 150 spectators. The main facility plant room is built onto the side of the pool hall and contains pool heating, electrics, filters and chemicals. The adjacent sixth form centre (now empty except for the remaining community centre, library and workshops) also takes heating from this area under a financial arrangement with Carlisle Leisure Limited (the Council’s leisure management operator). The pool has around 50 car parking places. In addition, externally, there are 3 grass football pitches, changing block and a disused all weather surface.

Site Situation and Logistics:

4.4 Unfortunately when the sports centre was added to the existing swimming pool in

1978 it was constructed as a separate building. This effectively means that operational costs are duplicated in a number of areas:

Duty Management

General Staffing

Receptionists

Reception Systems

Heating/Boilers

Mechanical & Electrical Installations

Changing Rooms and WC’s

IT/Phone Systems

Supplies & Services

4.5 It goes without saying that is an exceptionally inefficient and expensive way of

operating the business and substantial savings can be made by operating one, modern, well designed and efficient building as opposed to two, time expired ones. As well as the separateness of the buildings the existing siting of the two buildings below ground level has caused significant structural problems due to the flow of water and ageing drainage.

4.6 Flooding and damp are not uncommon and water ingress through the flooring and as a consequence of the poor external fabric is not uncommon.

Current Condition:

4.7 Both buildings were subject to a structural survey in July 2012 by AL Daines and Co with support from Entegra (Control Systems) Shaun Bell Electrical (Electrics) Gear Services (Mechanical & Engineering) and Correct Flow (Pool Plant and Control). Costing solutions were then undertaken by Baker Mallett. The scope of the survey was for bringing the structural and mechanical state of the existing building up to an acceptable standard only. This was not for a rebuild (although Daines/Baker Mallet have provided an estimated costs which are detailed later in this section) and does not allow anything for refitting the building, decoration, furnishings, fixtures, fittings or standard sports centre and pool equipment. It also needs to be recognised that it does not allow for the reworking of the spaces to take into account many of the inefficiencies noted above which could significantly reduce operating costs.

4.8 Given that the buildings are respectively 35 and 43 years respectively with no

major structural renovations or improvements undertaken during this period it is not surprising that the structural and general condition of the fabric of the buildings is poor and has been so for a number of years.

4.9 It also goes without saying that the buildings by modern standards are old,

unattractive and poorly designed from both a user, operational and efficiency perspective.

4.10 The current management arrangement with CLL was let on an expectation that a

new centre would be constructed and available for use within three years which has not happened. Considerable sums are being spent on keeping the buildings open, safe and operational. CLL did not budget for or expect to undertake major refurbishment work at Moorclose. It is worth mentioning that improvements to the gym and changing facilities were carried out in 2012 at a cost of £220k.

Previous contractors/operators do not appear to have undertaken any significant improvements or repairs and consequently the buildings are in poor order externally and much of the structure, fittings and mechanical and electrical plant is original to the centres.

4.11 AL Daines have estimated a cost of £0.78m and £2m respectively just for the required repairs and improvements to structure and M&E. This would replace roofing, cladding, glazing, external fixtures and fittings, interior support and structure where visible, some fittings, pool plant, parking, drainage and most M&E. This would bring the building up to a decent modern standard for a 40 year old facility and no more. It does not allow for the following:

• Redesigning or reworking the buildings

• Interior and changing room refit

• Décor

• Pool tank integrity and retiling of tanks and surrounds

• Furnishing

• All Equipment

• Office spaces

• Replacement lift

• DDA compliance where required

• Sports hall floorings

• Building floorings

• Potential undiscovered issues around footings, structure and foundations and

invisible issues not covered by the survey.

4.12 In addition it does not deal directly with the inefficiencies outlined above to a greater degree. CLL estimate that It would not be unreasonable to allow a sum for the total cost of the refurbishments required in addition to Daines report up to a further £2m giving a cost of approaching £5m to modernise the current facilities and extend their lifespan to a limited degree notwithstanding the age of the building per se. (Probably in the region of 5 years). Given this situation the continued refurbishment of an ageing facility does not provide a cost effective or best value option for the Council. The on-going revenue costs of continuing the existing facility are shown in section 7 of this report.

5.0 Supply and Demand

5.1 CLL were initially asked to provide a view of the facilities that should be included in the new leisure centre. This approach was taken based on CLL’s expertise as facility operators and used as a starting point for discussion and challenge. FMG was then commissioned to examine local supply and demand and propose a facility mix for the Council.

5.2 The FMG report (Appendix 1, sections 4 and 5) examines the levels of supply and demand in the area in light of the current facility provision. The report also takes into account the views of CLL and what it suggested as a proposed facility mix for a new centre and makes recommendations on the level of demand for the proposed facilities. This summary summarises the findings from the FMG report. It sets out an overview of the market supply and demand for the facility types and recommends a facility mix for the new centre.

5.3 The main thrust of FMG’s report was to establish levels of demand for the proposed facility types. In order to understand the propensities to participate in activities, FMG reviewed the local demographics of the catchment area for the proposed new centre, including the details of the health and economic activity of the local population and its market segmentation and propensity to participate in sport using the Sport England local profile analysis.

5.4 The report looked specifically at the supply and demand statistics for each proposed facility type at the new centre in order to identify the most appropriate facilities required for the catchment area demographics. On the basis of the demographic and supply and demand analysis a facility mix was recommended for the new facility.

5.5 The proposed facilities mix that was developed is outlined in the report. It also highlights the existing facilities mix in comparison with the proposed mix. Following discussions and consideration a mix was produced for consultation. This included an increase in the amount of health and fitness stations, more activity space and artificial outdoor football pitch. It was also proposed that the swimming pool should be an 8 lane pool with a moveable floor but no learner pool. Finally a Spa/ Sauna and climbing wall was proposed as new facilities in the leisure centre.

5.6 This facilities mix was the subject of a borough-wide consultation carried out in June 2013, to determine the type of facilities and the type of activities, people and organisations would like to see in a new leisure centre in Workington. The results of the consultation are available on request as a background document to this report.

5.7 In total 266 responses were received from the public and 14 responses received from organisations.

5.8 In summary, respondents supported the inclusion of the existing facilities in the new centre; sports hall, health and fitness gym (including facilities for children), studio, main pool spectator seating, squash courts, soft play, football but in addition indicated a preference also for Spa facilities, and a climbing wall, supporting the proposed facilities mix developed for the business case.

5.9 The need for swimming facilities and swimming classes, particularly for children was strongly stated in the consultation with the general consensus that space should be provided for adults and children separately. Therefore in response to the consultation a learner pool has been added to the facilities mix.

5.10 Therefore, the proposed facility mix (subject to final design and cost) for the new centre is as follows:

• A 25m x 8 lane pool with small pool for teaching / alternative uses and spectator

seating (this would be a regional facility not currently available in Cumbria)

• A spa suite (sauna/ steam room/ jacuzzi)

• Wet and dry changing facilities

• 4 court sports hall (including soft play area if practical)

• Climbing wall

• Fitness suite (100 stations) and 2 activity studios (flexible use)

• Spinning studio

• Artificial full size 3G pitch(es)

• 2 squash courts

• Café

• Administration / office provision

5.11 The final facilities mix will be subject to detailed design works but as much space as possible will be of multi-use in order to ensure maximum flexibility. Currently there are other discussions with a number of parties taking place in relation to the provision of a full size artificial pitch in Workington. These discussions will continue over the next 6 months but a situation may arise where the Council deems it better for another partner to provide the full size pitch whilst the Council installs and operates a number of enclosed 5 a side “pens”.

6.0 Site Evaluation Options 6.1 The selection of the site is an important consideration for any new facility. The

starting point for the Council was that the site should be in its ownership already thus negating the need to purchase land.

6.2 Following a review of Council owned pieces of land to assess viability three sites were shortlisted. They were:

• Land adjacent to Brow Top Car Park and the car park itself (Appendix 2)

• Brow Top Car Park (Appendix 3)

• Land adjacent to the existing leisure centre at Moorclose (Appendix 4)

6.3 Indicative plans were drawn up for all three options. All options included the same facility mix but the option for Land adjacent to Brow Top a Family Entertainment Centre was also proposed. The centre could include entertainment venues, cafes and restaurants.

Review

6.4 A review of the sites was then carried utilising the expertise of FMG and GT Architects. The business case report lays out the review process (Appendix 1- Section 6). The review included input from Council Departments and considered a number of issues for each site:

• Contribution to council objectives

• Accessibility

• Capital costs

• Consultations

• Commercial considerations (including revenue generation)

• Planning policy and planning

• Site constraints

• Site ownership and costs

6.5 A summary of each of the sites based upon detailed evaluation follows:

Option One - Brow Top and land adjacent to it 6.6 The Brow Top and land adjacent to the site has a central location to Workington

and forms the edge of the town centre and shopping precinct sitting next to the Brow Top car park. The footfall through the existing town centre is strong and the retail mix is very good.

6.7 The location on this site could provide a very good anchor to the end of the

shopping centre and encourage footfall from the community to extend further than the top of the existing ramp. This option integrates additional A3 unit provision, together with cinema and bowling. This is described as a Family Entertainment Centre (FEC) as the feedback has suggested that this will further enforce the leisure centre as an edge of shopping precinct anchor.

6.8 The land has a legal designation as an area for recreation. This also

includes retail as part of the Councils development plan. The proposal however, ensures that the leisure element of the FEC is the only element extending onto adjacent land and the retail elements stay on the Brow Top car park area.

6.9 Should Members approve this option then a separate project plan will be required

for the future development of the FEC within the overall development. It is envisaged that the leisure centre would be built first.

6.10 Its central location in the town centre ensures that public transport access, via bus,

train, taxi, etc. are on the doorstep to the site. Indeed the bus station and the train station are only 10 minutes away from the site for pedestrians. There are very good cycle routes to the suburb areas of Workington. Sustainability with regards to travel would score very well on any BREEAM assessment carried out on this site.

6.11 As part of the regeneration strategy of the Council, the leisure centre would improve the health and well-being in the community, with its enhanced facilities to the current mix.

6.12 It will be important to integrate the community at key stages in the design process

to ensure they feel part of the development. Historical evidence has shown that in doing this, it ensures they look after the building when it’s operational and have a sense of pride to it. Regeneration usually involves the creation of enhanced areas of neighbourhoods through development. The introduction of a leisure centre into this area would increase the footfall in the town centre and should improve local business and employment. This will be further enhanced through the introduction of the cinema and bowling box and retail elements.

6.13 It is also usual for the introduction of leisure centres to increase house prices in the

immediate area. The town centre of Workington has an eclectic mix of architecture and the new leisure centre should help deliver a catalyst for a new modern approach and the future regeneration of the area. Indeed, its position and location to the rugby and football stadia, cricket pitch, bowling-green and river, would help create a sports and entertainment strip. This may be looked at as part of a wider master plan for the area.

6.14 With regards to the environmental considerations, the Brow Top Car park and

adjacent land site may have mine shafts located nearby and must have a full risk assessment if this site is preferred. There must also be a detailed exercise carried out with regards to the locality of key elements of the facility mix with regards to noise, light emission and any impact on air quality (from plant room areas for example) and any resulting impact on the local businesses and residents in the adjacent conservation area.

6.15 In terms of ecology, a report has been undertaken which states that the site will

require careful consideration of the removal of Himalayan Balsam and giant hogweed and the site may impact on the breeding of nesting birds and an inspection will be required prior to building.

6.16 A detailed inspection of trees will be required for the consideration of bats if the trees are removed. If the water course is affected by the development then a survey will be required on the impact on otters in the area. Where new planting takes place, consideration should be given to Scots Pine for red squirrels.

6.17 Developing on the adjacent land will also require a full environmental impact study

and a full level 2 or 3 flood risk assessment will be required.

6.18 There are no specific services to be concerned about other than the possible

requirement of a new substation if the incoming supply is not sufficient for a large leisure centre, with cinema, bowling and retail provision.

6.19 There are no specific legal problems anticipated. As with all the options, the

mineral rights below ground (the council only own the ground surface and not the contents below ground), must be placed on a risk register and classed as high risk. The impact of the mineral rights must be looked at and mitigated early on in the design process. The Council is currently considering this and discussing the issue with the relevant owners of the rights.

Option Two - Brow Top Car Park Site

6.20 Brow Top Car park has a central location to Workington and forms the edge of the

town centre and shopping precinct. The footfall through the existing town centre is strong and the retail mix is very good. The location on this site could provide a very good anchor to the end of the shopping centre and encourage footfall from the community to extend further than the top of the existing ramp.

6.21 Pedestrian movement generally stops at the current Wilkinson’s store as there are

very little facilities to encourage migration past this point. The leisure centre would encourage this movement and take visitors down to the lower level and the possible sport and entertainment district. Most sports clubs and user groups are located within a short travel time (either by public transport or car) from the site.

6.22 The central location in town centre ensures that public transport access, via bus,

train, taxi, etc. are on the doorstep to the site. Indeed the bus station and the train station are only 10 minutes away from the site for pedestrians.

6.23 There are very good cycle routes to the suburb areas of Workington. Sustainability

with regards to travel would score very well on any BREEAM assessment carried out on this site.

6.24 The findings of an independent of car parking across Allerdale confirms that Workington town centre has an over provision of car parking allocation and so loss of car parking spaces on the site would not be an issue. Whilst we would provide for car parking spaces, local to the leisure centre, we would expect the travel to the site by car to be much less than that of Moor Close.

6.25 As part of the regeneration strategy of the Council, the leisure centre will improve the health and well-being in the community, with its enhanced facilities to the current mix.

6.26 It will be important to integrate the community at key stages in the design process

to ensure they feel part of the development. Historical evidence has shown that in doing this, it ensures they look after the building when it’s operational and have a sense of pride to it.

6.27 Regeneration usually involves the creation of enhanced areas of neighbourhoods

through development. The introduction of a leisure centre on Brow Top would increase the footfall in the town centre and should improve local business and employment. It is also usual for the introduction of leisure centres to increase house prices in the immediate area.

6.28 The town centre of Workington has an eclectic mix of architecture and the new

leisure centre should help deliver a catalyst for a new modern approach and the future regeneration of the area. Indeed, its position and location to the rugby and football stadia, cricket pitch, Bowling Green and river, would help create a sports and entertainment strip. This may be looked at as part of a wider master plan.

6.29 With regards to the environmental considerations, the Brow Top Car park may

have mine shafts located nearby and must have a full risk assessment if this site is preferred. There must also be a detailed exercise carried out with regards to the locality of key elements of the facility mix with regards to noise, light emission and any impact on air quality (from plant room areas for example) and any resulting impact on the local businesses and residents in the adjacent conservation area.

6.30 The Council must also be mindful of any tree preservation areas that are enforced

on established trees on the adjacent embankment. A full level 2 or 3 flood risk assessment will be required on the Brow Top car park site.

6.31 There are no specific services to be concerned about other than the possible

requirement of a new substation if the incoming supply is not sufficient for a large leisure centre. Brow Top is a very tight site and this results in quite a long building with high perimeter area. This could result in higher capital costs compared to the other two sites.

6.32 The other impact of this tight site, is that it restricts (or in the worst case closes) the

existing link road to the east of the site that currently connects Brow Top car park (passing under the footbridge). This may result in the building being recessed into the embankment to create a 3m access road (one way) and maintain the road linkage.

6.33 There are no specific legal problems anticipated. As with all the options, the

mineral rights below ground (the council only own the ground surface and not the contents below ground), must be placed on a risk register and classed as high risk. The impact of the mineral rights must be looked at and mitigated early on in the design process.

6.34 An ecological assessment has taken place and the site has similar issues to

Option 1, which stated that the site will require careful consideration of the removal of Himalayan Balsam, it may impact on the breeding of nesting birds and an inspection will be required prior to construction. If the water course is affected by the development then a survey will be required on the impact on otters in the area. Also where new planting takes place, consideration should be given to Scots Pine for red squirrels.

6.35 Although there is no giant hogweed on this site, the ecology report recommends

that a Habitants Regulation Assessment is required by the Council in relation to Crayfish.

Option Three – Moorclose

6.36 Moorclose is located on the outskirts of Workington. The activities provided

through the centre cater for the whole of Workington and the surrounding area. Interestingly the data held by CLL shows that out of the 9 neighbourhoods of Workington, the Moorclose community uses the leisure centre the least. Most sports clubs and user groups are located outside of the Moorclose community.

6.37 Due to the above demographic, most users of the centre tend to travel to the

leisure centre by car. This is partly because the length of time it takes to travel by public transport is too long (especially when travelling from the centre of Workington). This does not offer the most sustainable means of travel to a major leisure centre and this is not helped by the train station and main bus station being located in the town centre and away from the centre. Moorclose does however have good cycle routes to and from the Town Centre.

6.38 As previously stated, as part of the regeneration strategy of the Council, the leisure centre will improve the health and well-being in the community, with its enhanced facilities to the current mix. It will be important to integrate the community at key stages in the design process to ensure they feel part of the development.

6.39 Historical evidence has shown that in doing this, it ensures they look after the

building when it’s operational and have a sense of pride to it. Regeneration usually involves the creation of enhanced areas of neighbourhoods through development. It is difficult to envisage what regeneration (other than housing), the leisure centre and the surrounding external sports elements would deliver to Moorclose. It is doubtful that footfall would increase very much through the leisure centre doors based on the travel and demographic issues highlighted above.

6.40 With regards to the environmental considerations, the Moorclose area is

surrounded by mine shafts. Indeed there is a large shaft adjacent to the proposed site and therefore this may result in higher capital costs. A full risk assessment would need to be carried out if this is the preferred site.

6.41 There are no significant development constraints (planning constraints) within this

site. However a survey will be required on the existing external changing rooms in relation to bats prior to planning permission, consideration of a planting scheme for red squirrel and there is potential for reptiles on the site and a survey will be required prior to planning.

6.42 The land is made ground and therefore tests on the strata and depth to solid

ground would need to be analysed. 6.43 There are no specific services to be concerned about other than foul and surface

water drains that are located below the proposed building position. These would most likely need diverting at an increased capital cost.

6.44 As part of the more detailed design process, the capacity of the local sub-station

and the water discharge capacity from the backwash tanks of the pool needs to be understood. These could both carry high costs. Because Moorclose has an existing facility on the site, we would expect that the risk of additional requirements of attenuation of water and new sub stations would be low.

6.45 There are no specific legal problems anticipated other than land title issues that

need to be resolved. As with all the options, the mineral rights below ground (the Council only own the ground surface and not the contents below ground), must be placed on a risk register and classed as high risk. The impact of the mineral rights must be looked at and mitigated early on in the design process.

Key Issues to be considered following the selection of a preferred site

6.46 There are a number of issues that will require further consideration whichever site

is selected and can be summarised as follows:

• Mineral rights – the area of Workington is subject to mineral rights and any removal from the ground may be deemed as trespass. In addition, the cost of extracting these minerals may have a cost to the Council which during the consultation has been described as minimal and also substantial. This will need to be further examined as part of the feasibility study once the site is selected and built into the financial model.

• Environmental issues – This relates primarily to the town centre sites where possible noise and light pollution will need to be considered, especially as the land is adjacent to a conservation area. Issues such as fixed plant within the buildings will need to be designed carefully to ensure that this does not adversely impact on users or residents.

• Ecology – under all options there is a need to consider ecological issues further at full viability stage.

• Community Asset Transfer – The County Council is discussing a community asset transfer of the school sports hall and theatre to the Community Association at Moor Close. This would allow some sports provision to remain should either of the town centre options be selected.

• Mining works – there are numerous mining shafts and tunnels over the Workington area and contact with the Coal Board will be needed and surveys to ensure that a new facility can be constructed and the additional costs of stabilisation will need to be established and included in the business case report.

• Conservation area – Brow Top is situated adjacent to a conservation area which may result in limitations on the design of the new facility in terms of visual design, site lines and vistas from that area. Although planning does not believe this is a problem that cannot be resolved. Summary and Conclusion

6.47 FMG and GT Architects were appointed by the Council to carry out an objective

site options assessment and evaluation. This was undertaken within pre-agreed parameters and scoring regime (outlined within the report) against the elements outlined earlier but repeated here as:

• Contribution to council objectives

• Accessibility

• Capital costs

• Consultations

• Commercial considerations

• Planning policy and planning

• Site constraints

• Site ownership and costs

6.48 The table below sets out the final scores after the evaluation was completed.

Site Option Score

Site 1 – Brow Top and land adjacent to it 135

Site 2 – Brow Top Car Park 128.5

Site 3 – Moorclose 112.5

Site Option 6.49 It should be noted that the maximum score is 210 (42 x 5) and using the average

score (assuming all questions scored 3) is 126 points.

6.50 It can be seen that the Brow Top and adjacent land site scored the highest, with brow Top Car Park second and Moorclose site in third place. If weightings were applied, it is likely that the results would be in the same order, but the scoring differential would be significantly higher.

6.51 Although each of the site options scored better than the other sites on a number of different questions, in overall terms, and without weightings being applied to the questions, the Brow Top and adjacent site scored the highest against the other sites on the following areas:

6.52 Council objective – contribution to economic development

• The increased attractiveness of Workington town centre as a major retail and leisure destination will have significant advantages for existing town centre businesses that will benefit from the additional footfall and linked trips associated with the centre.

• Accessible location increases the attractiveness of the facility as an employer for those with limited transport opportunities, particularly younger people.

• Potential provision of these services would increase the attractiveness of the town to business sectors that require suitable social facilities, as well as attractiveness to industries who may seek to offer associated or complementary services such as hospitality, etc.

• Improvements for quality of life for residents and visitors through improved function, cultural and assembly opportunities.

6.53 Council objective – improve the vibrancy of the town centre

• Edge of centre location is ideal for large scale leisure facility which will increase the footfall within town centre, attractiveness of centre as a retail and leisure destination for residents and visitors, improve evening economy, increase linked trips and reduce the need to travel generally.

• The development would increase the attractiveness of town centre residential units, therefore improving and promoting sustainability and the need of residents to travel or use their own car to access leisure uses.

• At current time all major leisure facilities are provided in out of centre locations (cinema, bowling, sports centre) which are inevitably diverting trade away from the town centre, with significant implications for the centre's evening economy in particular.

• A major leisure centre in this location would provide an anchor facility which would increase the presence and diversity of visitors to the centre at different times of the day and evening, and would provide a catalyst for further ancillary and associated businesses, such as restaurants and shops.

6.54 Improved revenue generation and reduced operating subsidy

• Increased footfall opportunities from better access and cross fertilisation with the shopping area and proposed commercial leisure activities (e.g. cinema, bowling etc.) is likely to increase income from an increase footfall for the leisure centre site. This would be greater than the footfall from the shopping area only. Whilst it is difficult to quantify actual figures it is estimated that a town centre facility would benefit from 10-15% more income than an out of town facility. This figure has been estimated following consultation with a range of leisure providers.

6.55 Leverage of capital receipts from site

• The proposal to enhance the area with a new leisure centre and outdoor sports facilities is likely to increase the values for the leisure retail elements of the site, resulting from increased footfall and recognition for the site as being the leisure hub of West Cumbria.

Public Consultation

6.56 The Council ran an extensive public consultation exercise asking people for their

preferred sites and the reasons why. This exercise has contributed to the site assessment exercise and has been scored as one of a number of criteria. Whilst, the results have been included and scored within the evaluation exercise a full report is included as Appendix 5.

6.57 Out of 1645 responses received the overall preferences from the consultation

exercise are as follows:

• Land adjacent to Brow Top Car Park and the car park itself -46%

• Brow Top Car Park -10%

• Land adjacent to the existing leisure centre at Moorclose - 44%

6.58 The reasons people gave for their preferences are numerous and varied. Where possible once a site has been selected it is intended to deal with any issues as part of the design process.

Parking

6.59 The independent car park review commissioned by the Council in November 2012

considered current car parking provision across Allerdale.

6.60 Workington is the largest centre in Allerdale and is planned to grow further, with forecasts for the town to cater for 35% (nearly 1600 dwellings) of the Borough’s growth up to 2028. In addition a significant increase in retail space is expected and it is assumed that this will be primarily located within the existing centre.

6.61 Given the context of growth in the Borough and Workington being the primary

retail centre, it is very likely that demand for parking will increase. Surveys show that maximum demand occurs in December and that the car parks around the core retail area are well used but overall, there is spare capacity. This did not include the multi-storey which itself is not operating at full capacity. The review calculated that there is currently over provision in Workington and there would be in the future despite the predicted growth.

6.62 Brow Top has poor pedestrian accessibility, mainly due to the physical level

differences in that part of the town. The independent report highlighted its potential for commercial redevelopment. Both town centre proposals will provide parking for the new centre and the final design will deal with the issue in greater detail but it is likely that whilst a pay and display system will operate in the leisure centre car park users will be able to park free of charge whilst in the centre.

Contractors Report

6.63 In addition, as part of the SCAPE Framework (see section 8 of this report) the prospective contractor, Robertsons has carried out a review of the three site options. This high level review has taken into account issues such as site investigations, land and environmental conditions and topography. The report is included as Appendix 6, Gateway 2 Report and in the contractor’s opinion there are no major issues affecting any of the sites that would influence the site evaluation process at this stage.

Conclusion

6.64 In conclusion the Brow Top site and land adjacent to it scored the highest and therefore is the site that provides the opportunity to meet the Council’s objectives, provides the best value of risk and capital costs and overall is better placed to increase footfall to the town and the leisure centre, which in turn will optimise the overall operational costs of the facility.

6.65 Members are asked to consider the information provided and determine their

preferred site for the new swimming pool and leisure centre. The options may include the following:

• To approve the development of the new facility on the land adjacent to Brow Top Car Park with or without a Family Entertainment Centre on the car park site to follow as phase 2 of the development.

• To approve the development of the new centre on the existing Brow Top Car Park

• To approve the development of the new centre next to the existing centre at Moorclose

6.66 Should Members elect for either of the first two options they may wish to consider requesting that officers report back within a set timescale with alternative provision proposals at Moorclose following discussions with the County Council and the local community as a result of the discussions that are already on going relating to the school facilities on the current site.

7.0 Business Plan and Financials

7.1 A business plan model was prepared by FMG (Appendix 1, Section 7) of the business case report and has been prepared based on the proposed Site at Brow Top and Adjacent Land to determine the financial implications on the level of potential income, costs and the projected number of users that could arise from the planned new facility. This section sets out the total cost of running the new centre based on the three options outlined in section 6 of this report, alongside the “do nothing” option.

7.2 As part of the development of the business plan FMG has taken into account the financial performance of the existing site, feedback from the CLL and current pricing.

7.3 A business plan model was prepared to determine the financial implications on the level of potential income, costs and the projected number of users that could arise from the planned new facility. It remains important to note that all these costs are assessments based on a number of assumptions about current and future usage. For options 1 and 2 these are based on the projected profit and loss as set out in appendix 1 section 7. For option 3 the working assumption is that income and expenditure will decrease by 10% and 5% respectively. For the do nothing option, the forecast is based on CLL information on actuals for 2012/3.

7.4 Option 1 and 2 – Brow Top Car Park

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Net Operating cost/

(surplus)

7,657 (55,877) (95,059) (77,331) (77,331)

Share of CLL Corporate

Cost

163,500 163,500 163,500 163,500 163,500

New facility Lifecycle

costs

124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000

Total running cost of

new facility at Brow Top

Car Park

295,157 231,623 192,441 210,169 210,169

7.4.1 Option 3 – New Facility at Moorclose

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Net Operating cost/

(surplus)

49,994 (7,810) (42,973) (25,630) (25,630)

Share of CLL Corporate

Cost

163,500 163,500 163,500 163,500 163,500

New facility Lifecycle

costs

124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000

Total running cost of

new facility at Moorclose

337,494 279,690 244,527 261,370 261,370

7.4.2 Do nothing Option – Estimated running costs of current Leisure Centre

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Net Operating cost/

(surplus)

89,057 89,057 89,057 89,057 89,057

Share of CLL Corporate

Cost

207,240 207,240 207,240 207,240 207,240

Cost from Core Fund 81,500 81,500 81,500 81,500 81,500

Less demand on Core

Cost

(81,500) (71,500) (61,500) (41,500) 0

Total running cost of

existing Moorclose

facility

296,297 306,297 316,297 336,297 377,797

7.5 As previously mentioned, the new and existing income and costs are based on a

number of assumptions and caveats:

• The existing Moorclose costs are based on actuals for 12/13 for the operating cost

• The corporate costs are charged on a % allocation basis

• The total income across the 3 sites (Workington, Cockermouth and Keswick) is calculated in % terms. This same % is used to recharge corporate costs to the sites.

• A new facility in Workington is likely to have substantially increased income. By definition then, unless the % allocations are revised, the new site would pick up a larger share of the central overheads (and the other sites a smaller share of the central overheads).

• Any financial implications need to be considered across the three sites, and not just Workington

• The central costs currently include depreciation. At this early stage there is insufficient information to confirm or establish the impact of the new facility and its equipment on these costs.

• The core fund was established to fund improvement to the facilities and enhancements to services, and was funded by the savings made in NNDR charges applicable to a leisure trust. The future of this core fund will need to be considered in light of changes to the localisation of business rates and the future contract.

• The current balance on the Core Fund or future commitments has not been confirmed as part of this report.

• The New Facility Lifecycle costs need to be confirmed

7.6 There remains a number of key factors moving forward to release the savings identified above and where possible achieve further efficiencies:

• Innovation in the design of the new centre can significantly reduce staff costs required to run the facility, whilst also increasing revenue and this needs to be optimised e.g. dual use spaced, multi-use changing

• In addition, there have been major strides forward in innovation in intelligence sports equipment e.g. gym equipment that again means less staff costs

• Negotiation with CLL in the overall running of the Allerdale Portfolio of centres and the reduced management fee required to deliver Workington.

7.7 A new facility requires a provision for building and equipment lifecycle of £124,000 to cover the replacement of operator fixture, fittings and equipment over the next 10 years. Building lifecycle contributions for the new facility at this stage are based upon 10% of the capital cost divided by 25 years which would equate to an annual requirement for circa £36,000 per annum plus £18,000 for the artificial pitch refresh of any carpet in 10 years’ time.

7.8 The use of a town centre site is reflected in the tables above. Market intelligence taken from CLL and other industry specialists estimates that a new centre on an out of town site would achieve a reduction in income of between 10% and 15%. A reduction of operational costs has also been applied (5%).

7.9 Following a report to the Executive in September 2012 providing investment for the existing centre Members resolved that the arrangements relating to the Core Fund be reviewed, this will be carried out as part of the negotiations with CLL should a variation to the existing management agreement be approved as outlined in section 8 of this report.

7.10 It should be noted that as part of the business planning process CLL has stated

that it would expect to achieve a higher level of savings than those outlined in this report believing that the FMG report adopts a conservative approach. Should Members approve CLL as the operator the actual cost the Council pays will be the subject of extensive negotiation and agreement with CLL.

8.0 New Build Procurement Route

8.1 There are a number of options for procuring any new build capital project, depending on the nature of the project, required timescales and funding mechanisms. A full review was carried out by FMG (section 8 of the business case report).

8.2 As the Council is self-financing the proposed scheme, and it is a large complex project with a clearly defined project programme, there are a number of procurement route options:

Traditional

8.3 In many cases the Council would design the project and then procure through the OJEU route (current limit £4.35m for works), using either a fully measured Bill of Quantities or drawings and specification to get an agreed fixed price. Inevitably there is some transfer of risk to the contractor and this is reflected in the tender price (which may not be the project completion price).

Design and Build/Design, Build, Operate and Maintain

8.4 Effectively the Council decides what the new facility should include, what finance is available and what the desired quality is and approaches the market for a contractor to price a design and build contract which gives the contractor control of the design and construction process.

8.5 As a further development of this, the Design, Build, Operate and Maintain

arrangements allow for a turn-key solution to be developed and gives certainty over costs/standards of the on-going use of the facility.

Design Competition

8.6 Not strictly a procurement route this can allow the selection of the design team in advance to produce a scheme the Council approves prior to testing the market either through a traditional procurement or framework provider.

Single Provider Frameworks

8.7 There are a number of local government framework arrangements for construction and these allow procurement of a range of construction related disciplines including design, project management, quantity surveying and the use of contractors to carry out projects of varying types and values.

8.8. All of the above options have their advantages and disadvantages. Given the

Council’s current requirements, there are significant time advantages in not using the traditional procurement route or the design competition selection processes.

8.9 While the various Design and Build (Open and Restricted Process, DBOM) option could achieve the desired outcomes there is insufficient control of the design process and potentially insufficient resource available to control and manage the process.

8.10 The Single Provider Framework allows sufficient time to refine any design and the

use of a pre-tendered OJEU compliant framework allows knowledge of fees, overheads, profit margins in arriving at an assured gross maximum price.

The Scape Framework

8.11 Scape is a local government owned and controlled company which specialises in

the provision of single tender frameworks for construction projects in both public and private sectors.

8.12 The latest round of tenders (2013), are fully OJEU compliant and approved and

offer a range of contractors and construction professional practices and with given rates dependant on likely project value.

8.13 The use of these frameworks is both cost effective but more importantly can cut up

to 200 days off project programmes by removing the need for OJEU compliance and advertising, assessment and education.

8.14 Scape builds on over 50 years’ experience with proven processes which have the

flexibility to respond to every type of project or programme of works. The Scape framework has been designed by the public sector for the public estate and can be used by any public sector body throughout the UK.

Single Provider Frameworks – the benefits

8.15 The advantages of using a single provider framework (in this case pre-tendered) are as follows:

• As the Council has already signed an Access Agreement with Scape, it can use any of the framework agreements without further process. The frameworks therefore offer the fastest compliant route to market

• Single provider frameworks offer immediate access to partners – this avoids the time and cost to client and partner alike of undergoing a tender process/mini competition. The result is development spend is maximised and resources are released to focus on project particulars. Independent studies have indicated that the savings from not undertaking a project specific OJEU procurement exercise are a time saving of in the region of 200 days and a cost saving of at least £75,000, allowing for all professional costs

• The client can take comfort from knowing that they are dealing with the partner who proved themselves to be the best when the framework was procured. In the case of Scape WIllmott Dixon have recently been successfully re-appointed as the framework partner, following an OJEU compliant procurement exercise, where they were scored the highest out of six shortlisted bidders on both the quality and commercial elements of the tender

• Single provider frameworks enable partners to invest in dedicated delivery teams. The cumulative value of the frameworks mean that they are an influential element of partners’ business plans

• Single provider frameworks enable continuity of personnel across repeat business and/or programmes of work (if required), enabling lessons learnt and continuous improvement to be captured and applied

• Strategic savings are made through developing smarter systems and presenting pipelines of work, which can only happen through longer term collaborative relationships

• Early contractor involvement and contractor support/advice on brief development, budget costing, project programming and buildability is provided at no cost at feasibility stage (unless external support to inform the process such as surveys etc. is required). The frameworks aim to deliver a ‘no surprises’ journey – the resulting value of this early involvement is very significant and is key to shaping the success of a project. Key decisions are often already made when undertaking a competitive selection process and may have to be re-visited, following the appointment of a contractor, with subsequent impact on budget and programme

• The client is able to form long term relationships to deliver more with less and can form long term collaborative teams, recognised by central government as the most cost effective way of delivering projects

• The client can be involved in the supply chain procurement, setting their procurement strategy

• 100% of cost on any project is market tested (explained in more detail below). The main contractor’s costs reflect the collective buying power of the framework (£1.25 billion over 4 years); this normally represents around 10% of the value of each project using the framework

• The long term relationships which underpin the frameworks make substantial strategic investments possible, to innovate and address client needs. Scape and

• Out of a total of 157 projects to date undertaken by Willmott Dixon via our Major Works framework agreement, none has been delivered over agreed budget or time

Working with Scape – the benefits

8.16 The Scape framework provides the following benefits:

• Clients retain control of their investment at all stages. Each project follows a flexible but robust process map, which captures best practice, promotes a ‘one team’ approach and provides confidence

• Scape monitors a number of key performance indicators for each of its frameworks. KPI’s in the Major Works framework include time and cost predictability, defects at completion, health and safety, client satisfaction (both product and service), waste management, employment and skills plan targets achieved, local spend and local employment. As there is very limited KPI data on the 2013 framework, some highlights achieved by Willmott Dixon under the previous iteration of the Major Works framework are as follows:

(i) Local employment: four jobs created for every £1m spent, plus employment and

skills targets exceeded by 256% (ii) Local economy: 54% of project budget spent within 20 miles of Scape sites and

88% within 60 miles (iii) Safety: average Scape project AFR - 0.086 (400% below the industry average

score of 0.35) (iv) Supply chain payment: 100% within 30 days

(v) Sustainability: 95% of waste diverted away from landfill

• Scape fees represent good value for money for a managed framework service, again helping reduce client management costs. Scape fees cover the cost of framework procurement and their on-going management; facilitating initial project engagement with our partners; access to all framework documentation and introductory training; collation, analysis and reporting on key performance indicators captured through our frameworks

• 90% of project costs are delivered through the local supply chain

• With all documentation and contracts provided, legal costs and risks are minimal

• Scape have been procuring framework agreements for over seven years and have never been subject to a successful legal challenge

Achieving and Evidencing Best Value

8.17 The method through which an individual project is costed under the Major Works

framework ensures that best value is achieved and can be easily verified and demonstrated. Individual projects are costed by a combination of core costs, that were tendered when the framework was let, and by open book competitive tendering of the remainder of the project through a supply chain:

• Core costs – as part of the tender for the framework, Willmott Dixon priced % management fees, covering their corporate/general overheads and profit, and people (pre and post contract management staff) and equipment (site accommodation) costs. Both elements of these tendered costs are used as the starting point for the pricing of a specific project. The former is a fixed percentage (according to the project value) and the framework agreement includes a detailed schedule of what this fee covers so this is completely transparent. People and equipment costs were priced against several notional projects of different values and proportions of new build to refurbishment.

Again there is a detailed breakdown of these costs for each notional project within the framework agreement, so if it is necessary to interpolate between two notional projects to most closely match your project, again there is clear transparency. In some instances, particularly at Project Request Form stage, when the scope/programme of works is yet to be finalised, the partner may base their estimates for these elements of cost on recent project data, rather than strictly applying the framework costs (these would be subsequently applied as the project brief is developed). The % management fees and people and equipment costs are located in schedule 10 of the framework agreement issued on CD previously.

• Work package costs – all other elements of a project are treated as work packages under the frameworks, even other elements of traditional preliminaries such as scaffolding, site hoardings etc. Unless agreed differently with the client, each work package has to be competitively tendered to a minimum of three suppliers/contractors. The choice of supply chain is agreed with the client and you can have input into the drawing up of the list (whilst final responsibility for the choice of supply chain rests with the framework contractor). These costs are subject to scrutiny by the client’s cost auditor, who should benchmark them against comparable costs from other projects etc. As indicated above, our Key Performance Indicators measure the proximity of both supply chain members and individual operatives to the site, thereby ensuring as much spend as possible is invested locally.

9.0 Management of the New Centre

9.1 The Council’s current facility management agreement is with CLL running until 2019. The contract deals with the closure and opening of new facilities through the means of an agreed variation between the parties. The Council could if it wished operate the new centre itself or carry out a procurement exercise for an operator. However, a number of issues would affect the viability of that approach. For example, there would be TUPE implications, increased overhead costs for one centre and a fragmented approach to the Council’s leisure facilities. A better option for the Council is to add the new centre to the existing agreement and in order to ensure increased efficiencies (as the set up costs of a new centre are front loaded) extend the current contract in line with its provisions by two years. There may be opportunities for the Council to extend the contract by more than two years but the pros and cons of such an approach will be explored during coming months.

9.2 The Council will have to negotiate a revised management fee with CLL for the contract as a whole taking advantage of the savings outlined within this report. This is why the revenue costs outlined up to this point can be used as an assessment only and not formal agreed figures.

10.0 New Build Funding Opportunities

10.1 The Council are considering a number of potential funding options which may be available to over the next six months to contribute towards the cost of the new swimming pool and leisure centre.

Energy Coast West Cumbria (BEC)

10.2 Initial conversations with BEC have been positive with the Company keen to support the Council in submitting an expression of interest for a funding contribution for the new swimming pool and leisure centre. The project fits into the strategic objectives of the West Cumbria Economic Blueprint particularly in terms of the environmental systems of the build. The Council would like to ensure that the new centre makes the most of the potential greener energy systems available now and in the future.

Sport England

10.3 Sport England will launch a new multi-sport facility fund (previously Iconic Facilities) in the near future. Initial conversations have taken place with Sport England and a new swimming pool and leisure centre is a project which could be supported as part of their new criteria and up to £1.5 million is available per project. Their decisions will be based on the demonstrated need of a new facility and the outcome of the current Playing Pitch and Sports Facility strategy will need to be taken into consideration.

10.4 This fund does not have application windows, it is open until all funds are spent so once an option is confirmed and the development/business plan is in place, Allerdale can move forward with an expression of interest.

10.5 In addition to this grant there will also be further rounds of the Improvement grants (£150 - £500k) early next year.

Football Foundation & Football Association (FA)

10.6 The FA have an opportunity to fund capital projects through it's facilitating partners, The Football Foundation. Although all projects are different, they aim to be able to fund up to 40% of the football element of a project.

10.7 Both organisations have been involved in early conversations with the Council and there is funding available to support provision in Cumbria. They are currently part of the creation of the Allerdale Playing Pitch Strategy and will not commit any funding until the report has been produced which is due early in 2014.

Other Funding Streams

10.8 The Council has had some success with other funding streams and officers will be examining potential opportunities over the coming months. These will most likely be funding streams linked to regeneration and / or economic growth. Once a site has been identified and final designs completed it is more likely that a successful funding application can be made.

11.0 Next Stages 11.1 The next stage of the project following approval of a preferred site the procurement

route is to develop the project up to final design stage and contract signing. Key milestones in this regard and associated costs are as follows:

Project Team

11.2 It is proposed to appoint a project team to support the Council as follows:

11.3 SCAPE:

11.4 SCAPE itself forms part of the project team ensuring that contractors meet their commitments under the contract. SCAPE managers monitor financial and performance information as the project progresses and assist the Council in ensuring that the SCAPE process is beneficial to all involved.

11.5 Project Managers / QS Services – TBA

11.6 The Council will require an externally provided service to ensure that the project is managed properly and relevant costs are controlled.

This process will be provided through a procurement framework or through open tender and will be worked though as a matter of urgency.

11.7 Design Services - GT Architects - (reporting direct to and working on behalf of the Council)

11.8 GT Architects are a design-oriented Sports and Leisure architectural practice. The practice prides itself on the quality of the individual rather than the company and between the two directors they have over 20 years sports and leisure experience, delivering over 40 sport and leisure centre projects over the last six years.

11.9 Their work is recognised for its innovative approach and GT Architects reputation is founded upon their commitment to offer quality architectural services and the commitment to maintain our continuous pursuit of design excellence. This is driven through the building concept and technical delivery. They have experience of undertaking projects from small scale community centres to major international venues and understand the different criteria that each project may require. We have developed a reputation for delivering both concept and technical solutions to a very high standard.

11.10 Their knowledge of operator requirements and relationships with key sports organisations enables them to generate innovative solutions to client needs and our proactive nature ensures we make the most of projects to create popular places, which are enjoyed and praised by the general public.

11.11 Robertsons – Main Contractors through the Scape Framework and working on behalf of Wilmot Dixon Limited

11.12 Robertson was established in 1966 and is a privately owned group of companies working in infrastructure, support services and construction and operates throughout the UK.

11.13 Employing over 1200 people, with offices throughout the North of England and Scotland, Robertson operates across six market sectors. These sectors include a timber frame engineering business, a facilities management company, a capital projects business dedicated to PFI and PPP investments, four regionally-based construction companies, a property development company and a house building company.

11.14 With a turnover of over £300m, Robertson is dedicated to quality, creating value and operating in a safe environment for our clients.

11.15 Construction projects carried out range in value from minor works up to projects over £100m. Earlier this year Robertson, handed over the Aberdeen Emergency Care Centre with a construction value of £110m and is currently on site with a further phase with a construction value of £20m.

11.16 The North of England Business, which would be responsible for delivering the new centre, has grown year on year for the last seven years and now delivers over £50m of construction projects.

11.17 In the North West of England, Robertson has recently handed over the first phase of new Health Facilities in Cumbria under the Express LIFT framework. The first phase comprised a £9.4 m Community Hospital in Cockermouth and a £4.2m Health Centre in Cleator Moor. Both these projects were successfully handed over in August 2013.

Development Programme and Costs

11.18 Members are asked to approve the next stage of the project (up to contractor’s proposals) with the key milestones as follows:

Submit Planning Application - 17 February 14, (12 weeks) Planning Approval - 20 May 14, (25 weeks) Submit Contractors Proposals - 20

May 14, (25 weeks) Contract Agreed - 23 June 14, (27 weeks) Start on Site - 21 July 14, (30 weeks) Erect Structure Steelwork - 5 January 15 Install Roof - 5 March 15 Weather Tightness - 26 June 15 Completion - 23 November 15

11.19 Owing to the urgency to replace the existing Centres once a decision is taken to

proceed work will begin to condense the programme where possible. 11.20 A full construction programme is included in the Robertsons report (Appendix C of

the Gateway 2 Report).

11.21 The costs associated with the next phase approval are estimated to be as follows

Cost Area Cost to

31 March 2014

Additional Cost to

Contract Signing –

23 June 2014

Full Project

Cost

Cost of project

post

Contract signing

Project

Management / QS

Services

£69,000 £57,000 £104,500

£230,500

Design Services

£245,500 £247,000 £181,500 £674,500

Main Contractor

£0.00 £40,000 £8,601,000 £8,641,000

11.22 At this stage the capital cost of the build including design and Scape fees is estimated as £9.31m (Gateway 2 report, Appendix D cost plan). A budget of £315k is required in 2013-14 to cover the next stage of this project. There is currently revenue provision for £230k and the balance will be drawn from capital receipts.

11.23 At each stage of the design and construction programme, costs will be reviewed and driven out accordingly in order to achieve the Council’s £9m budget.

12.0 Legal Implications and Risks

12.1 In terms of legal implications there are 2 specific areas to consider. Firstly, the SCAPE framework is a pre-tendered OJEU compliant framework that has not been subject to legal change since its launch and is regularly used by many public sector organisations.

12.2 Secondly, any variation to the existing management agreement will have legal

implications for the Council and should be carried out in accordance with the terms of the existing contract.

12.3 As with any major projects of this nature there are a number of risks that need to

be considered, managed and mitigated against. A risk register for the project is attached as Appendix 7 but the key risks to the Council are as follows:

• Failure to agree site within proposed timescales

• Failure to bring site forward for development (depending on site selected)

• Failure to agree adequate funding for the development

• New site not financially viable (subject to contract negotiations in relation to the management fee payable)

• Lack of community buy in, in site selection process

• Procurement options not fully considered for build and / or operation

• Project not delivered in line with Council Objectives / priorities

12.4 Throughout the Pre Construction phase a number of risk reduction workshops will be held and the risk register will be updated accordingly. All parties and relevant stakeholders will attend the risk reduction workshops with each party being responsible for the management/mitigation of their assigned risks.

12.5 The proposed date for the risk reduction workshops are indicated within the Pre

Construction Programme.

13.0 Recommendations 13.1 That Members:

(i) Select the preferred site for the new leisure centre as outlined within the report

(ii) Approve the use of the SCAPE Framework for delivery of the project and the contractors as outlined within the report

(iii) Authorise the Corporate Director to award the necessary contracts within the SCAPE Framework and for the necessary Project Management Services as required

(iv) Approve the next stages of the project to include viability, design and development up to securing planning permission and final design and costs (to be presented to a further Executive meeting for approval with contract signing)

(v) Approve a variation in principle to the existing leisure management contract with Carlisle Leisure Limited (CLL) to add the new centre and to extend the existing contract in line with its term for an additional 2 years subject to the negotiation of an acceptable management fee (with the actual variation being agreed by the Corporate Director following consultation with the Chief Executive and the portfolio holder).

14.0 Conclusion

14.1 The replacement of a new swimming pool and leisure centre in Workington is a major capital project for the Council. Ensuring that the Borough has a good range of sports, arts and leisure opportunities is a priority for the Council as outlined in the commitment given to local communities through the Council Plan.

14.2 The importance of sport and physical activity to people’s health cannot be

underestimated and the quality of facilities has a direct bearing on levels of participation and continued use.

14.3 The new centre will be an aspirational building that is efficient to run, easy to

operate and above all welcoming and exciting for local people and visitors alike and will demonstrate the Councils desire to ensure that the Borough has facilities and public buildings that it can be proud of.

Paul Shackley

Corporate Director