ITEM CA11 DETAILED PROJECT APPRAISAL APPRAISAL NO. ED 630 NAME OF SCHEME: Contribution to the refurbishment/rebuild of three joint use sports centres in Cherwell START YEAR: 2005/2006 BASIS OF ESTIMATE: Cost estimates from Cherwell District Council. Contribution assessed on the extent of improvement to facilities used by schools in the Cherwell area.
This report seeks approval to a financial contribution towards the modernisation of the jointly used Kidlington & Gosford, Bicester & Ploughley and Spiceball Park Sports Centres. It describes the proposals as so far developed and the need for Cherwell District Council to have certainty about the County Council’s contribution by the end of December. Kidlington & Gosford The jointly used facilities were developed at different times. The swimming pool was added in 1973 with joint funding by the County, Parish, District Councils and the Gosford Hill School Association. Four squash courts were added in 1981 and improvements to the Sports Hall (which dates back to 1945) and hard play area by the County Council followed in 1980. In 1994 the District Council added an activity hall, health & fitness studio, crèche, spa, changing rooms, offices and stores. In 1996 pipe work problems in the pool led to sustained closure and costly shared repairs. In 2002 the Councils jointly funded significant improvements to an artificial turf pitch to replace the failed hard play area. There is a long history of the County and District Councils sharing improvement as well as repair and maintenance costs, usually on the same ratio as the maintenance costs of 33.3% (the County Council) and 66.6% (the District Council) but on occasion with the County Council contributing up to 50%. Bicester & Ploughley The sports hall and pool at Bicester were built jointly by the County and District Councils in 1969 and squash courts were added in 1971. It was sold to the District Council in 1988 when the District Council added a teaching pool, small hall and fitness studio. The County Council meets whichever is the higher of 23% of running costs of jointly used areas or £117,900 (the share at the time of sale) adjusted for inflation. Spiceball Park The District Council owns Spiceball Park Sports Centre. The Centre suffers from closures due to flooding and is in need of modernisation. The County Council meets 25% of the pool costs. Schools use the pool on 4½ days a week during term time. In addition there is one evening session per week in the pool for youth activities.
Subject to available finance and affordability, the District Council’s planned improvements to these Centres are:
The modernisation works would be procured on an integrated Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) basis. Works at the three centres would form a single project. All would be managed under a single operating agreement in the form of a private sector hybrid trust or a not-for-profit distributing organisation. The Kidlington and Bicester Centres provide the sports halls for Gosford Hill School and Bicester Community College and schools in the Cherwell area use the pools at all three centres under the joint use agreements. Therefore it is reasonable for the District Council to expect a contribution to these works from the County Council. The District Council’s Project Board has stated that the District Council is looking for a contribution of around £1.57 million from the County Council, inflation proofed. The contribution relating to the Spiceball Park £11-12 million new build cost has been based on additional swimming capacity. The increased educational benefit from improved facilities with increased capacity to meet what the District Council sees as a potential increase in school swimming requirements arising from growth in the area has been valued at 20% of £900,000, which is £180,000. At Bicester & Ploughley, the modernisation proposals do not involve increased capacity for school use and therefore no contribution is requested for facility development, although schools will benefit from the improved facilities. However, the traffic management issue does require resolution and, whilst a jointly funded first phase improvement has been undertaken, the future solution requires a major redesign of traffic management and pedestrian segregation. To avoid the loss of one of the two multi-purpose courts which are used by Bicester Community College, the District Council has proposed that an additional strip of land to the north east of the Sports Centre from the School’s playing fields would facilitate the scheme. The primary purpose of this proposal, and the expenditure associated with it, is to resolve the problems generated by the use of the sports centre car parks by the surrounding schools. Therefore, in addition to the additional land strip to enable an effective traffic management scheme, a 50% capital contribution is sought from the County Council of the estimated £275,000 external works cost - i.e. £137,500. If there were cost savings arising from the roadway being built on the new land strip, consideration of investment in the existing tennis courts on Bicester Community College to provide more all weather playing space might be an option. At Kidlington, the District Council’s wish to invest substantially to modernise current County Council buildings on County Council land requires a lease to protect this investment. The draft Heads of Terms have been agreed at a peppercorn rent. The District Council is therefore approaching this site from a stronger partnership perspective as the proposed, largely essential, works have a direct benefit to school use. The initial estimate for a scheme involving a replacement sports hall, new pool roof and pool plant plus refurbished dry changing rooms was £2.3m. This has been subsequently increased to £2.5m due to the school’s and the County Council’s request to relocate the sports hall to the rear of the Centre if possible. the District Council is therefore looking for 50% contribution of £1.25 million towards the works. The total requested amounts to £1,567,500 plus the land at Bicester to resolve the traffic management issues relating to the campus. The District Council need to have confirmation of the County Council’s contribution by the end of December so that it can continue to progress and develop the proposals as planned. This is the contribution recommended. The two secondary schools involved support the project, although the potential loss of one of the multi-use games areas at Bicester for school use is seen as a drawback and the governors have not at this stage agreed the use of a strip of land as proposed. The proposals are supported by the Centres’ Management Committees and the Kidlington & Gosford Management Committee has expressed a strong desire for more to be spent on modernising the Centre and to secure a greater financial contribution from the County Council. The proposals will also include changes to the joint use agreements to reflect the new facilities and investment and the changes in the management arrangements entailed in the DBOM package.
A condition survey commissioned by the District Council in 2001 found that while the Kidlington and Gosford Sports Centre is satisfactorily maintained and safe to use, the older parts of the Centre do not meet current standards and user expectations in terms of layout, circulation, construction, condition and environment. Pedestrian and vehicle access is poor, the hall is poorly insulated and needs replacing, heating is uneconomic and inefficient, lighting and light levels are poor, the hall is an odd shape, changing areas are substandard and services need reproviding, especially the pool plant. The pool roof and plant are no longer cost effective to repair and the sports hall is time expired. The County Council meets one third of the operating and repair and maintenance costs for the jointly used areas. The repair and maintenance budget provision is currently £38,000 which can only cover urgent works, maintenance contracts and only the very highest priority works to keep the Centre operating. Responsibility for carrying out repairs transferred to the District Council in 2003. The condition assessed need in 2004-05 amounted to £14,000 for urgent works, £103,900 for building work (including £40,000 to replace the hall floor) and £68,300 for mechanical and electrical work. But this was only for work on items which have failed or only have a 2-5 year life. The traffic and pedestrian movement problem at Bicester has been identified as needing action. The County Council has already contributed £40,000 towards the first phase of improvement. There is a need to assess the impact of the first phase and for further collaborative work and funding to establish and agree the remainder the works needed to provide the best solution. Use of land at Bicester Community College still needs further discussion and agreement. In view of the condition and age of the County Council’s parts of the Kidlington Centre and the improvements to school use at all three Centres a substantial contribution towards this project is considered to be good value and in proportion to the benefits of the whole package to schools and the community. The contribution meets the Education Asset Management Plan priorities of Modernisation of School Premises, Building Learning Communities - in respect of improving school and community access to sports facilities in line with the extended schools initiative - and Opportunity Development, as the District Council will meet the majority of the overall investment. The Capital Programme and Forward Plan already includes other projects to build new sports halls under the Opportunity Development priority area at Didcot Girls and Bartholomew Schools using NOF PE & Sport and Modernisation money. The project is in line with the Council's value of customer focus, the objective of value for money and the Community Strategy by contributing to improving sporting opportunities, health and quality of life. Modernising and improving the condition of schools is a key property objective under the Corporate Asset Management Plan & Capital Strategy which this project helps to address. It is also an example of effective partnership working.
A bid for £1 million over 2 years was submitted to the Capital Steering Group for unallocated capital last year for this project but was not successful. A contribution of less than this sum would not be viable as the work would not be able to proceed as currently proposed. A capital sum contribution is the District Council's preferred option although it would consider revenue and/or capital/revenue alternatives. The use of Prudential Funding would not appear to have any advantages as it would mean that the contribution amount plus borrowing interest would have to be found. The sum proposed is outside the scope of the Joint Use revenue budget. Should any resources in this budget remain uncommitted at the end of 2005-06 or later years these can be used towards the contribution. A capital sum from the Capital Programme remains the only viable option. Another option would be to maintain the level of contribution requested by Cherwell for Spiceball Park and Kidlington & Gosford but reduce the contribution to the traffic work at Bicester & Ploughley to 23% of the estimated £275,000 (£63,250) to reflect the limited benefit outside the sports centre site. This would make the total contribution £1,493,250. If the principle of joint funding in accordance with the percentage split of costs established in the joint use agreements is applied to the costs put forward by Cherwell (Kidlington 33.3%, Bicester 23% and Spiceball Park 25%) then the County Council share of the £3,675,000 of costs identified by the District Council for sharing would be £1,120,750 (33.3% of £2.5m, 23% of £275,000 plus 25% of £900,000). While this might be an option, it would mean a shortfall in the total funding available for the project of £446,750, which might mean that some aspects could no longer be accommodated. Particularly at risk would be the relocation, if possible, of the Kidlington sports hall, the option preferred by the School and officers, but which is estimated as incurring an additional estimated cost of £200,000 more than rebuild of the hall where it is now, which would involve closure during rebuilding works. If no contribution is made the total project as envisaged is not possible and there would have to be substantial reductions to the detriment of schools and the local communities. The project offers a unique opportunity for modernisation which would otherwise fall to the County Council at Kidlington. This option is not recommended. The District Council has carried out risk assessments and has put in place measures to manage the large numbers of risks for a project with this scope. The use of DBOM to pass on or share risks with the procurement consortium is one of these. One of the major risks to the project identified by the District Council is the availability of the 1.5 million external funding (inflation proofed). If funds cannot be found then some of the options for modernisation may not be achievable. A contribution from the County Council is vital to the success of the project. This contribution could be capped and conditions attached that the improvements at Kidlington and Gosford and the external areas at Bicester & Ploughley would be acceptable to the County Council. The County Council’s risk exposure would then be minimal, whether the project goes ahead or not.
While a contribution in 2007-08 would be in line with the building work programme, currently envisaged to start in that year, there are advantages in making part of it earlier. The District Council wishes to have the contribution inflation protected. The expectation is that £1.120 to £1.567 million guaranteed now would need to be increased for inflation if handed over in later years. However, if part of the contribution is made in 2005-06 towards fee expenditure already incurred, it can be pegged. It is estimated that around £200,000 to £250,000 will have been spent in fees by August 06. The bulk of the contribution in a later year(s) will include interest on capital balances to cover the additional funding for inflation. The interest due to the District Council will be met centrally. Taking the money from the Education Capital Programme will help with the current spending slippage due to the size of the resources available and help ensure that credit approvals are utilised. The schools programme will be revised to accommodate the contribution. Further modernisation and basic need allocations are likely in 2008-09 and after to assist with the forward funding of this project. This is the recommended option.
Cherwell District Council will carry out the building work in accordance with the requirements of any planning permission granted.
KEITH
BARTLEY
|