Agenda item - Review of the Leisure Facilities Strategy (Swimming)

This report sets out the background to the development of the Council’s leisure facilities strategy, an update on schemes already approved, strategic issues and choices now facing the Council, and options for an updated leisure facilities strategy.

RESOLVED: (i) That Option C be agreed: that is, to reconfirm the Council’s commitment to the partnership with the University and also to plan for an additional city centre pool to meet further identified needs, subject to detailed agreement on the terms of the Council’s contribution and in particular:

· the University adopting a project plan that will deliver the pool by 2011

· satisfactory arrangements being set out regarding location of and public access to the pool.

(ii) That approval be given to revise the respective schemes within the capital programme to take account of:

· allocating the pools programme contingency budget as set out in paragraph 77 of the report

· the additional prudential borrowing set out in paragraph 78

· allocating the overall procurement budget as set out in paragraph 75.

REASON: So that a clear and agreed strategy can be taken forward with immediate progress to create excellent swimming facilities in York and options developed for a central location for a further pool.

Members considered a report which set out the background to development of the Council’s leisure facilities strategy, an update on schemes already approved, strategic issues and choices now facing the Council and options available for an updated facilities strategy. The report, prepared in response to a request from Group Leaders for a review of this area and a resolution passed at Council on 29 June regarding swimming, focused specifically upon swimming facilities.

An analysis of supply and demand for swimming facilities, carried out by the Council on behalf of Active York, had indicated a current un-met demand for an additional 12 x 25metre lanes of swimming space in the City. Demand was highest in the South and East of the City, where no casual access pools were available.

In respect of current schemes, repairs to Yearsley pool were now well advanced and on schedule for the planned re-opening on 29 October. Additional specifications had been suggested for the Oaklands / York High project, including an improved environment specification, the cost of which could be met partly from prudential borrowing. The overall cost was projected to exceed the currently allocated budget by about £220k, due to additional unexpected items. No allocation had yet been made to this project from the overall programme fees and contingency and Members were now requested to make this allocation (£240k). The University of York and the Council had now signed up to a Statement of Intent regarding the development of a competition standard pool and fitness facilities at Heslington.

The report detailed the pros and cons of the following strategic options for future swimming provision:

Option A – reconfirm the Council’s commitment to the partnership with the University;

Option B – withdraw from the partnership with the University and build a new Council pool instead;

Option C- reconfirm the Council’s commitment to the partnership with the University and also plan for an additional city centre pool to meet further identified needs;

Option D - reconfirm the Council’s commitment to the partnership with the University whilst also planning for the long term replacement of Yearsley Pool.

Option C was recommended, as it would meet current and future needs, including demand for a city centre pool, whilst being affordable within existing budgets, provided that a suitable commercial partner could be found to operate the city centre site. On the basis of work commissioned from Wm Saunders, Architects, Officers had looked at a number of potential sites for this pool and determined that there were no city centre sites that could be progressed in the short term. However, a firm policy decision was required at this stage to enable the progression of further work to identify a suitable site.

With regard to the advice of the Shadow Executive, the Chair commented that St George’s Field was not considered a suitable location for a pool, due to flooding issues and the need to replace parking provision. However, there would be no objection to entering into a continuing dialogue on the development of additional sports facilities in the future, perhaps via a Working Group of some kind.