Agenda and minutes

To receive any disclosure of interests from Members and Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and/or prejudicial interests in accordance with legislation and the Council’s Code of Conduct.

Councillors Huxstep and Warwick declared disclosable pecuniary interests as they were both County Councillors and the County Council had awarded £1 million to the project.  However they both participated in the meeting and, in the case of Councillor Warwick voted on items as below, under the dispensation granted by the Standards Committee.

Councillor Ashton declared a personal but not prejudicial interest as his wife was a trustee of “Allegra’s Ambition” which was involved with the project.

RESOLVED:

            That the minutes of the previous meeting held 25 July 2018, be approved and adopted.

– to receive and note questions asked and statements made from members of the public on issues relating to the responsibility of this Committee (see note overleaf).

Three members of the public and/or representatives of local sports groups spoke during public participation and their comments are summarised below.

Mike Fisher (Winchester City Penguins Swimming Club) noted that there had been a degree of negativity about the project recently which was in danger of overshadowing the many positive benefits that a new Centre would bring.  The Club had approximately 1,200 members who would all benefit from the increased capacity offered by a 50m pool, together with many other people including local school pupils and the general public.  The increased water space would also offer a wider range of activities to take place.  In summary, he welcomed the proposals and the opportunity to work collaboratively within the community to ensuring the success of the new facility.

Sue Falconer spoke on behalf of Winchester SALT stating that everyone involved in the project wished it to succeed.  However, as the scheme was progressing, they had concerns that there was no final agreement with the University of Winchester and the impact on the project’s viability if the University were not involved.  She highlighted that Weston Park Blades Netball Club had not been consulted until recently, despite the Council being informed about the club at an earlier stage and suggested that other clubs might have been excluded from the consultation.  She stated that representations favouring provision of 12 courts at the new centre had been passed to the architects but had been misrepresented in the final report.  She believed that this raised questions about the advice provided and whether it was biased in favour of a particular way forward.  She queried how the new centre could guarantee sufficient demand and the support it would offer to local clubs.

Geoff Wright (resident of St Giles Hill) highlighted that the first two risks in the risk register contained as Appendix 2 to Report CAB3076(LC) had a current risk score of being likely and significant but the report did not appear to address this adequately.  With regard to the projected underspend of £6m, he believed this suggested a significant slippage which was likely to increase the overall cost of the project. He did not consider this was adequately addressed in the report either.

The Chairman introduced the report and confirmed that comments made during public participation would be addressed (as far as possible) during the course of the meeting.  She highlighted the following points:

• the summary of actions from Advisory Panels on the project which was contained as Appendix 1 to the report and had been provided in response to comments made at the previous Committee meeting;

·         a preconstruction agreement  for the construction of the new facility had been agreed with  Wilmott Dixon, a firm with considerable experience of delivering leisure centres;

·         the date for the Planning Committee to consider the planning application had not yet been set but was expected to take place in October 2018;

·         Paragraphs 11.3 to 11.6 summarised earlier decisions taken by the Committee regarding the provision of bleacher seating in response to the matter being raised again at the previous Committee meeting;

·         The “Frequently Asked Questions” section of the Leisure Centre project webpage had recently been updated to address recent questions raised.

She announced two forthcoming consultation events in November for which invitations would be issued and further publicity arranged in due course.

In response to questions raised by Members during the meeting and earlier in the public participation period, the following points were made.  Responses were provided by the Head of Programme and the Head of Sport and Physical Activity, together with Mike Lawless (LA Architects) and Olivia Burton and Sean Clark (MACE) who were also present at the meeting:

Concern over seating, lighting and glass wall limiting use of sports hall

Mr Lawless confirmed that the lighting was designed to be flexible and it conformed to national guidance and Sport England requirements.  Blinds would be installed over the glass  for use as required.  Although one elevation  was intended to be glass, there was over 60m of other wall space in the hall which could be played against.

The flooring proposed was of a high standard and robust.  However users would have to have regard to the type of seating brought it to prevent damage.  For major competitions, usual practice was for a mat to be brought in to protect the floor.

Weston Park Blade Netball Club

The Head of Sport and Physical Activity confirmed that discussions had taken place with the Club who were happy that their matches could be accommodated in the new centre.  They intended to use existing chairs for matches but consider hiring in additional seating if necessary.

Provision of changing rooms for umpires of club matches

Provision of adequate changing rooms was highlighted as a key matter by two Members.

Query regarding RIBA stage 5/construction costs

The advisors from MACE stated that RIBA stage 4 involved detailed level of design being agreed which reduced the risk for the Council on handing over the scheme to a contractor.  An element of RIBA stage 5 was also part of the pre-construction stage and was split due to the design and build contract adopted by the Council. 

The contract would be awarded on a fixed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.