APPENDIX 2 PROPOSAL FOR REPLACEMENT FOR POOLE (DOLPHIN) LEISURE CENTRE FINAL SPECIFICATION 1 PURPOSE 1.1 To provide the following information and supporting evidence for the Member decision (reference Main Report 2.iii and section 5.1) to include a replacement leisure centre as part of the Town Centre Redevelopment proposal: Background information on the reason for replacing the leisure centre Information on responses to the consultation on the preferred outline specification To confirm the outline specification and next steps for the proposed new leisure centre 1.2 Whilst the delivery of the proposal will remain subject to ongoing viability work, the key reasons why Members wish to replace the leisure centre are: To support the Council s health and well-being objectives and deliver a wide range of community benefits To help ensure the success of the overall redevelopment scheme by enhancing the vision of the town centre as an attractive place to live and visit To form a vital part of the Borough s future sporting, leisure and recreational infrastructure 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Poole (Dolphin) Leisure Centre was built in the early 1970 s and offers a large gym, group exercise studio, three swimming pools and a diving pool. The centre is managed by Sports and Leisure Management Ltd (Everyone Active) who have a contract to operate three sites in Poole until 2021. 2.2 The facility attracts nearly 340,000 visitors each year (17% of which are Access to Leisure and Learning card holders), has more than 2300 fitness members and provides over 1000 swimming lessons each week. Overall attendances increased by 4% in 2016/17. Specialist use of the facility is made by sports clubs including Poole Swimming Club (approx. 250 members) who won Swim England s 2017 Performance Club of the Year and Wessex Diving Club (approx. 45 members). 2.3 The interior decor of the building is generally good following refurbishments over recent years however, the facility is aging and condition surveys show increasing levels of deterioration within the substructure and plant. BoP is facing rising maintenance costs to keep the building operational and these costs will significantly increase in coming years. 2.4 There continues to be an identifiable need to provide a swimming pool in the town centre: Whilst the provision of leisure centres is not a statutory duty for Local Authorities, the public often have a high expectation that these types of facilities are provided and Poole s leisure centres are a vital part of the towns sporting, leisure and recreational infrastructure. A replacement facility would also: form an important part of the fabric of the new town centre provide a non-retail anchor for the TCN redevelopment
increase the appeal of new residential development and help to maximise opportunities for investment Without a facility in the town centre, the Councils ability to enable and support healthy active lifestyles would be significantly reduced. There is a need to increase levels of activity amongst many local residents and at least a sixth of the population will be able to travel to the facility by foot. The need for a replacement centre is supported by the Bournemouth & Poole Sports Facilities Strategy 2014-26. Loss of the existing facility would result in a significant under supply of swimming provision and reduce opportunities to develop this important life skill, in a coastal location. 2.5 The need in the town is for a traditional formal laned pool, in which people can participate in a range of aquatic activities, but predominantly swimming. A formal laned pool appropriately addresses the activity needs of schools, clubs and the wider community. The Council must use its scarce resources to maximum effect and is therefore unlikely to be able to prioritise the development of additional water based facilities, above those identified in the proposed specification. This position is supported by the high cost but relatively low demand for activities such as diving, together with the presence of alternative leisure water facilities in and around Poole. 2.6 Phasing the delivery of a replacement facility will be important to sustain and grow existing footfall and demand. Removal of the current centre prior to the construction of a replacement would have a significant negative impact on the availability of key activities such as swimming lessons, business continuity and forecast incomes. 2.7 Table 1 below shows the current and indicative outline specifications for a replacement facility and the estimated financial impacts. A range of options were considered with indicative capital costs between 8-18m. The facility mix in Option 2, whilst not the lowest capital cost option, was supported by Cabinet (Dec 2017) as the preferred specification for consultation. Option 2 sustains the amount of water space provided and offers a wide range of facilities to maximise footfall and generates the highest indicative annual operating surplus, partly due to greater opportunities for additional swimming lessons with the larger learner pool. 2.8 The effect of a diving pool in Option 1, whilst improving forecast income to a degree, is offset by increased staff, energy and maintenance costs. Options that were not recommended, such as having a smaller learner pool, realise lower income projections due to programming constraints and those with a significantly reduced specification realise a worse revenue position than the current offer. Forecast figures show that having a significant dry-side offer (gyms/studios) is important to the overall sustainability of a new leisure centre.
TABLE 1 Facilities Swimming Pools Current Main 25 x 13m = 6 Lane Learner 13 x 7m 17 x 8.5m (moveable floor) Teaching 12 x 6m Specification Options 1 2 3 25 x 17m 25 x 17m = 8 Lane = 8 Lane 20 x 10m (moveable floor) 25 x 13m = 6 Lane Diving 12 x 12m 17m x 17m Spectators 216 seats Fitness Gym 60 stations 120 stations 120 stations 80 stations Studios 1 studio 3 studios 3 studios 1 studio Catering Vending Café Pod + Vending Finance Indicative Capital Costs (inc. fees & contingency) Indicative Gross Surplus / (Subsidy) 10 yr average 18m 15.3m 8.05m 81k ( 15k) 130k ( 134k) 3 CONSULTATION 3.1 The consultation on the specification options in Table 1 was carried out during February and March 2018 with key stakeholders, users and residents. It was promoted extensively online via the Council s E-mail me system, website, social and public media channels, in print at libraries and the leisure centre and via face-to-face interviews. Everyone Active promoted it directly to 27,500 users and officers also met with representatives from Wessex Diving Club, Poole Swimming Club, Active Dorset, Swim England and Sport England. 3.2 A total of 990 responses to the consultation were received (775 online and 115 paper forms) and 206 face to face interviews were conducted. The majority of respondents overall were Poole residents (approx. 80%) and 86% of online or paper respondents were users of Poole (Dolphin) Leisure Centre, compared to 37% of those interviewed face to face. Overall, the responses validate the previous needs assessment and reflect support for the principle of replacing the leisure centre as part of the town centre regeneration proposal. 3.3 55% of respondents to the open consultation agree or strongly agree with the proposal to take Option 2 forward as the preferred specification, 12% neither agree nor disagree and 32% disagree or strongly disagree. 75% of those taking part in face to face interviews agree or strongly agree with the proposal, 7% neither agree nor disagree and 18% disagree or strongly disagree. 3.4 The main reason for disagreeing was the lack of diving facilities inc. board diving and sub-aqua. The lack of a 50m pool was also mentioned by many respondents. Other main suggestions included consideration of: parking arrangements; refurbishing/improving the current centre; spa facilities; spectator seating; and facilities for disabled people. The full consultation report is available on the Councils website at www.poole.gov.uk/leisurecentreconsultation.
3.5 Consideration of suggestions for the inclusion of diving facilities 3.5.1 194 of those who disagreed with the proposals commented on the lack of a diving pool within the specification, inc. 13 who commented regarding sub-aqua facilities. 3.5.2 The Council recognises that there is not currently another publically accessible diving facility within the conurbation (the nearest is Southampton), that Poole has a small but committed diving club, the centre runs a Learn to Dive programme and there are potential direct and indirect benefits to providing diving facilities. A range of comments were received relating to the value that could potentially be derived from a diving facility, including several references to skill development and building water confidence in young people. 3.5.3 In considering the suggestions to include diving facilities, officers have referred to the FINA/Swim England specifications for diving pools, which prescribe set minimum water depths, board heights and operational use for training and competition venues. The addition of a suitable diving facility on a constrained site, with increases in building height and area, pool depth and platform costs, would add considerable capital cost as indicated in Table 1, whilst generating significantly less revenue than other water based activities. Together with additional operational costs this would mean the facility would be likely to require ongoing operational subsidy and is therefore not recommended. 3.5.4 Members are asked to note that the proposed maximum pool depth of 2m would restrict sports that prefer deeper water, such as scuba-diving. 3.6 Consideration of suggestions for the inclusion of 50m Pool 3.6.1 48 of those who disagreed with the proposals commented on the lack of a either a 50m pool or 2 x 25m, within the specification. 3.6.2 The Council recognises that there is not currently a 50m pool within the conurbation (the nearest is Portsmouth), that Poole has a successful swimming club it is keen to support and there is good evidence of a range of potential direct and indirect benefits to providing facilities for elite level swimmers. A range of comments were received, including several outlining personal experiences, regarding the value that could potentially be derived from a 50m pool. 3.6.3 It is recognised that in the right location a 50m pool could provide considerable benefit to the conurbation. However, in a constrained town centre location and delivery of the proposed facility is dependent on the overall viability of a large and complex regeneration scheme, with many significant demands on the Council s limited capital capability. 3.6.4 The proposed specification is intended to deliver a high standard facility suitable for both leisure and competitive swimming and therefore a 50m pool is not recommended for the following reasons: A 50m pool is a specialist facility required by a small % of residents for training and competition. A Council priority is to maximise opportunities for public participation in sports activities and the proposed specification offers a more cost effective solution that meets the swimming needs of a larger majority of users.
A 25 x 17m 8 lane pool would improve the offer and deliver a high standard facility capable of hosting Swim England Short Course (Level 2) competitions. The full benefits of a 50m pool would only be achieved if it met the specification for Long Course (Level 1) in a 50 x 19m pool. This would also require additional infrastructure such as; more spectator seats, wider pool decks, competitor space and a second warm down pool. These would add significant capital costs as well as additional running costs, impacts on operational flexibility and reduced leisure swimming use, meaning that the facility is more likely to require ongoing subsidy. There are technical solutions to enable 50m pools to operate more flexibly as 2 x 25m pools, such as targeted water heating and moveable dividers/bulkheads, however these also add significant capital cost. 3.7 Other items raised 3.7.1 As part of the consultation, Sport England and Active Dorset recommended the principle of leisure centres co-locating with other appropriate public services and provided some evidence of this working effectively in other locations. Typically this would be a leisure partnership with health providers, care, cultural or voluntary organisations. Such partnerships would seek service synergies and capital or operational efficiencies. It is intended that officers will explore the level of interest with other potential partners for co-location on the understanding that any further proposal should be financially sustainable, offer operational flexibility for both community and commercial services and not create capital pressure or cause any delay in the initiation of the procurement phase of the regeneration programme. 3.7.2 To support the development of competitive swimming, the need for additional facilities was raised during the consultation. Officers are recommending that the new facility includes 150-250 poolside spectator seats however, the exact figure would be determined in liaison with Swim England. The need for an office for the swimming club was also identified which the Council will seek to accommodate within the revised specification. Both of these items are likely to bring additional capital costs which would need to be considered as part of the overall scheme. 4 REVISED SPECIFICATION 4.1 Following consultation and consideration of the results and stakeholder feedback, officers are recommending that the expanded specification shown in Table 2 below is taken forwards as part of the development partner procurement. TABLE 2 Swimming Pools Main Learner Spectators Fitness Gym 120 stations Studios 25 x 17m = 8 Lane Swim England (Level 2) Competition 20 x 10m (moveable floor) Approx. 150-250 poolside seats 3 studios Catering Café Pod + Vending Approx. 50 covers Other Community/ commercial outlets Swimming Club Spa Facilities Co-locating related health services Office / store Sauna & Steam facilities
5 NEXT STEPS 5.1 To support the preparation of the documentation required for the development partner procurement, officers will develop a more detailed specification. The specification will ensure that the new leisure centre meets the Councils technical and operational requirements and complies with relevant design frameworks and best practice models, to ensure a good quality accessible facility is specified and tendered. 5.2 Much of this additional specification detail for the procurement phase can be developed in-house with some additional technical and specialist support being obtained where needed. 5.3 The Service Unit Head for Culture and Community will work in consultation with the Portfolio Holder to finalise the specification details and ensure that the necessary leisure centre requirements are included with the development partner procurement schedule. 5.4 Delivery of a new leisure centre remains subject to ongoing viability work of the overall regeneration project. 6 EQUALITIES IMPACT 6.1 The specification for the replacement leisure centre will incorporate enhanced design features to ensure a high quality and inclusive service for all users. Potential development partners will be required to ensure that any options and designs comply with legal requirements and good practice guidance. 6.2 At the current project initiation stage, equalities impacts for the regeneration programme will be addressed via the main report and attached EQIA. More detailed specifications for individual elements of the programme will be developed and used at tender stage, including an EQIA for the replacement leisure centre. KEVIN McERLANE HEAD OF CULTURE AND COMMUNITY Contact Officer Anthony Rogers, Recreation Manager, (01202) 261345 Background Paper 1. New Leisure Centre Preferred Specification - Consultation Report (March 2018) See www.poole.gov.uk/leisurecentreconsultation