Agenda item

This report provides officer advice regarding a motion, concerning re-provision of a pool on the Kent Street site, that has been submitted to the Executive for consideration and referral on to Full Council.

Members received a report which provided officer advice regarding a notice of motion, concerning re-provision of a pool on the Kent Street site, that had been submitted to the Executive for consideration and referral on to Full Council.

The notice of motion, proposed by Cllr Scott and seconded by Cllr Potter, read as follows:

“Council instructs Council officers as a matter of urgency to seek to retain the option of a pool on the Kent Street site.  To enable the re-provision of a pool on the site this Council asks

a)      That officers take no active steps to promote the sale of the site, save as might be required by law;

b)      That officers enter into negotiations to withdraw from the agreed sale.

c)      The £2m funding currently earmarked for a University Pool to be retained by the Council for pump priming a pool development at the Kent Street site or other appropriate city centre location.

d)      Officers provide a report which examines alternative design solutions for a replacement pool including examining:

i)whether an agreement can be reached with the car park owner for car parking facilities to provide the customer parking off the coach park site, or

ii)the possible release of the end bay of the car park, and the redesigning of the previously proposed pool etc to provide front servicing to remove the need for the access road to the back.”

The report presented two options for consideration:

·  Option 1 – to refer the notice of motion to Council on 28 June 2007, with comments from the Executive;

·  Option 2 – to seek further information before referring the notice of motion to Council.

The Executive were only able to formally comment on the motion submitted and not the amendment that Councillor Scott had circulated.  They opposed to the motion on the following grounds:

·  The sale of the site was committed and it would be extremely expensive to repurchase the site and would jeopardise the Council’s reputation;

·  Any premium paid in repurchasing the site could be subject to investigation by the District Auditor;

·  The coach park site was not large enough to accommodate a pool, fitness facilities and associated parking and access requirements;

·  The Heslington pool was a requirement of the Planning permission for the campus expansion, and if run in competition with nearby Council facilities, it would abstract customers and possibly make the Council pool completely uneconomic;

·  Only about £500K would be available to fund a Kent Street facility (instead of £2 million for Heslington). The facility would cost around £7 million to build. If the balance of the funding were borrowed, then this would suggest annual running costs of £3/4 million. In the absence of any headroom in the Council’s revenue budget, this suggested swimming charges of around 2 to 3 times current levels to break even;

·  The Heslington alternative was affordable, was progressing well and was expected to break even on running costs. It would also provide vastly better facilities – covering both indoor and outdoor sports activities - than could be provided at Kent Street including a competition standard pool;

·  The original proposals for a Kent Street pool and fitness centre would now be in its first 6 months of operation if legal action had not been taken to prevent the building work commencing;

·  Part of the political management agreements for the current municipal year required the £2 million allocation for the Heslington pool to be frozen until a comprehensive review of the Council’s swimming and leisure strategy has been considered by Council.