Appendix 1: FMG Business Case
This page is intentionally left blank
A BUSINESS CASE FOR THE NEW LEISURE CENTRE IN WORKINGTON
ALLERDALE BOROUGH COUNCIL
A A FINAL REPORT BY FMG CONSULTING LTD
18th October 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Background ...... 1
2. Local Context ...... 4
3. Proposed Facility Mix ...... 19
4. Supply and Demand ...... 22
5. Recommended Facility Mix ...... 41
6. Site Evaluation ...... 44
7. Business Plan ...... 55
8. Procurement Strategy ...... 65
9. Summary and Conclusion ...... 88
APPENDICIES
A – Census Report and Map
B – Site Evaluation Worksheet
C – 5 Year Business Plan
D – RIBA Stages
E – Procurement Evaluation Worksheet and Timescales
1. Introduction and Background
Introduction
1.1 Allerdale Borough Council (the Council) are considering the future investment options for a new leisure centre within Workington to improve the services and facilities it provides and with the aim to reduce the operating subsidy.
1.2 The Council has asked FMG Consulting Ltd (FMG) to develop a business case for the investment into a new facility and carry out a market supply and demand exercise and financial appraisal to determine most appropriate facility mix, to develop a business plan for a new facility, the most suitable site and a procurement strategy for the new Workington Leisure Centre.
Background
1.3 The Borough of Allerdale is situated in the county of Cumbria, which is in the North West of England. The Borough covers 1,242km2 and has a population of 96,422 (Census 2011). Allerdale borders the Borough of Copeland and the District of South Lakeland to the south, Eden District to the east, the City of Carlisle to the north east and the Irish Sea to the west.
1.4 The major towns in the Borough are Cockermouth, Maryport and Workington which are situated in a triangle and comprise of circa two thirds of the population. Workington has the largest population of the 3 towns with circa 24,000 people living in the town, compared to 7,900 in Cockermouth and 11,300 in Maryport.
1.5 The location of the proposed new leisure centre is in Workington. The town is located with good road links to the surrounding towns. The A66 directly links to Cockermouth, the A598 and A595 to Whitehaven and the A596 to Maryport. The closest Motorway is the M6 that runs to the east of Carlisle. Carlisle is approximately a 50 minute drive time from Workington.
1.6 Northern Rail operates train services along the West Cumbrian Coast to towns and villages served from the city of Carlisle. Mainline services to the north and south can be accessed from Carlisle.
Current Facilities
1.7 The current facility at Workington is split into 2 buildings, the Sports Centre building and the Swimming Pool building. The tables overleaf set out the current facilities at the site provided by Carlisle Leisure on behalf of Allerdale Borough Council.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 1
Table 1.1 Sports Centre Building Facility Mix
Facilities Existing Sports Centre building
Sports Hall 4 courts
Activity Hall 2 courts
Health and Fitness Gym 50 stations (extending to 75)
Spinning Studio Yes
Boxing Gym Yes
Squash Courts 4 (3 in use)
Dry Changing Yes individual male and female
Catering Service Café and kitchens
Soft Play Area Yes (in squash court)
Meeting Rooms 2 Rooms (1 after gym extension)
1.8 In terms of the Gross Internal Floor Area, the Sports Centre building is 3,195m2. The table below shows the facilities available in the Swimming Pool building.
Table 1.2 Swimming Pool Building Facility Mix
Facilities Existing Swimming Pool building
Main Pool 6 lane x 25m
Learner Pool Yes
Wet Changing Yes individual male and female
Spectator Seating 150 seats on balcony
1.9 In terms of the Gross Internal Floor Area, the Swimming Pool building is 2,166m2. In addition, there are 4 grass pitches with a changing block and a large all weather space as well as 2 car parks with capacity of circa 250 cars.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 2
1.10 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
Section 2 – Analysis of Local Context;
Section 3 – Initial Facility Mix;
Section 4 – Supply and Demand Assessment;
Section 5 – Recommended Facility Mix;
Section 6 – Site Analysis and Evaluation;
Section 7 – Indicative Business Plan;
Section 8 – Procurement Strategy; and
Section 9 – Summary and Recommendations.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 3
2. Local Context
Introduction
2.1 This section reviews the local demographics of the Borough and also examines the catchment areas for the two proposed new sites identified by the Council, the current Workington Leisure Centre site (CA14 3QB) and the site adjacent to Council offices at Allerdale House in Workington (CA14 2DP) known as the Brow Top and adjacent land site.
Population of the Borough
2.2 The Borough has a population of 96,422 according to the Census 2011, of which circa 80,000 people are over the age of 16 years (83.1%). The target age for physical exercise is between 18 and 44 years and there are circa 29,000 people (30.2%) in this target segment. This is positive in terms of potential participation in physical activity within Workington.
2.3 The largest proportion of the population is 21.6% for ages 45 to 59 years, circa 21,000 people, and this group may also potentially participate in physical activity.
Obesity across the Borough
2.4 In terms of obesity, data suggests that the number of adults in the borough that are classified as obese is circa 17,900 or 24.3% of the adult population. This is slightly above the national position where it is estimated that 24.2% of the population are deemed to be obese. A comparison of the neighbouring District of Copeland shows that the adult obesity rate in Copeland is 26.9%, which is also above the national average.
2.5 In terms of children, the level of obesity is at 20.7%, which is above the national position of 18.7%. In Copeland, the levels of child obesity are also above average at 19.6%.
2.6 These obesity levels should be tackled in the Borough, and the possibility of a variation in activities and a new leisure centre may help to increase participation and change the perceptions in the area to sport and physical activity.
Life Expectancy
2.7 Life expectancy in Allerdale is slightly lower when compared with the national average. Males have a life expectancy of 77.7 years compared to 78.3 years, while females live to an average of 81.1 years compared to 82.3 years nationally.
2.8 The life expectancy in Copeland for males is similar to Allerdale at 77.6 years and for females life expectancy is 80.4 years. Both of these figures are below the national average.
Sport England Key Performance Indicators for the Borough
2.9 Sport England, the Governments agency for sport measure 5 key areas in relation to sport activity. The table below sets out the performance of the Borough compared to the North West and England.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 4
Table 2.1 Comparison with Sport England KPI
Allerdale North West England
KPI1 – 3x30 Physical 13.2% 17.1% 16.3% Activity per week
KPI2 - Volunteering at least 10.4% 7.0% 7.3% one hour a week
KPI3 - Club Membership in 22.7% 23.1% 23.3% the last 4 weeks
KPI4 – Received tuition / 13.8% 14.9% 16.2% coaching in last 12 months
KPI5 - Took part in organised competition in 14.8% 14.1% 14.3% last 12 months
Above regional and Above national average but Below regional and national averages not regional average national averages
2.10 It can be seen by the figures that in the Borough only two of the 5 KPIs are above regional and national averages. Volunteering (KPI2) is significantly above both averages with 10.4% compared to 7.0% regionally and 7.3% nationally. The other positive KPI is participating in organised competition (KPI5) that is slightly above average with 14.8% in the Borough compared to 14.1% and 14.3% regionally and nationally respectively.
2.11 However, 3 x 30 minute participation (KPI1), club membership (KPI3) and tuition and coaching (KPI4) are all below regional and national averages. 3 x 30 minute participation is significantly below average with only 13.2% participating compared to 17.1% in the North West and 16.3% in England.
2.12 Furthermore, KPI3, club membership in the last 4 weeks is slightly below both averages. The current figure for Allerdale is 22.7% compared to 23.1% regionally and 23.3% nationally. Finally, KPI4, receiving tuition and coaching is below both averages. Only 13.8% have received coaching and tuition compared to 14.9% regionally and 16.2% nationally, although we understand that this may be as a result of supply and not demand.
2.13 The figures show that there is room for improvement within the Borough. Participation in 3 x 30 minutes is a key factor and currently the KPI is significantly below average. A new sports centre may be able to attract new participants and increase this figure within the authority.
2.14 In terms of trends between 2007 and 2011 the table shows these for each of the five key performance indicators, the colours (green above and red below) represent the change from the previous year, with green indicating a positive increase and red a decrease in performance.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 5
Table 2.2 - Trends for Allerdale in Sport England KPI
Indicator 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
KPI1 - 3x30 Physical Activity 14.4% 16.7% 17.2% 13.2% per week observed
KPI2 - Volunteering at least 4.3% 6.8% 7.4% 10.4% one hour a week
KPI3 – Club Membership in 19.9% 23.6% 19.1% 22.7% the last 4 weeks
KPI4 – Received tuition / 14.6% 15.6% 15.8% 13.8% coaching in last 12 months
KPI5 - Took part in organised competition in 11.2% 12.7% 12.6% 14.8% last 12 months
2.15 It can be seen that in 2010/11 (the last published measured year), the two KPIs that were above both regional and national averages, KPI2 and KPI5, both increased from the 2009/10 results. This included KPI2, volunteering, that has continued to increase from 2007/08. In addition, KPI3 has increase from 2009/10 levels despite being below the averages. Therefore, this is positive in terms of club membership potentially continuing to rise to be above regional and national averages in the future.
2.16 The two KPIs that have decreased, 3 x 30 minutes (KPI1) and tuition and coaching (KPI4), have both decreased from 2009/10 figures despite both increasing from 2007/08 to 2009/10. They have both showed significant decreases and this could potentially be negative for participation in Allerdale. However, a potential new leisure centre may help to increase these figures, attracting additional participants to the new centre.
Catchment Analysis of the Two Proposed Sites
2.17 This part of the report reviews the local demographics of the catchment area for the two sites, including the market segmentation and the details of the health and economic activity of the local population for each site.
2.18 The map overleaf shows the two potential sites in Workington. It should be noted that the two sites in question are circa 2 miles apart from each other or a 5 minute drive time.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 6
Map 2.1 Map of Workington locating the current and proposed site
2.19 The key is shown below:
Proposed Brow Top Site
Workington Leisure Centre
2.20 We have also applied a 20 minute drive time, which is a common catchment for leisure facilities. Data from the national census and from Sport England was used to analyse the profile of each catchment area. In order to assess the composition and characteristics of the catchment areas immediately surrounding the potential site locations, we have applied a 1 mile catchment which was generated around each site.
Total catchment – 1 mile walk (20 minutes)
2.21 The tables below show the total number of residents living within the 1 mile walking distance of each site. Given sustainable transport agendas and the longer-term objective identified in the sports strategy of achieving an access standard of a 1 mile walk distance to
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 7
swimming pools and sports halls, it is important to consider providing a new facility in an area where as many residents as possible can access the facility on-foot.
2.22 We have identified the highest population group in green, with the second highest in yellow and third in blue.
Table 2.3 Total population within a 1 mile walk of Brow Top Site and Adjacent Land at Post Code CA14 2DP
Distance 0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total (Miles)
0 - 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.25 - 0.5 299 229 415 548 384 117 1,992
0.5 - 0.75 676 584 978 1,328 822 204 4,592
0.75 – 1 332 258 416 730 610 229 2,575
Total 1,307 1,071 1,809 2,606 1,816 550 9,159
Table 2.4 Total population within a 1 mile walk for the existing Workington Leisure Centre
Distance 0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total (Miles)
0-0.25 24 11 34 40 72 19 200
0.25-0.5 258 193 356 480 266 58 1,611
0.5-0.75 670 563 943 1,288 833 232 4,529
0.75-1 366 263 443 603 406 93 2,174
Total 1,318 1,030 1,776 2,411 1,577 402 8,514
2.23 It can be seen that there are similar levels of population in both areas, although there is a marginally higher number at the Brow Top site. The majority of the population near the Brow Top site live over 0.5 miles from the site which is similar to the existing Workington Leisure centre site. However, the Brow Top site has a marginally greater population within 0.5 miles and similar population within 0.75 mile of the sites.
2.24 The population near the existing Workington Leisure Centre are younger than the existing site in terms of profile of that group.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 8
Total Catchment – 20 minute drive time
2.25 We have also compared the population catchments using a 20 minute drive time to understand the quality and profile of the population. Details are set out in the table below.
Table 2.5 Total population within a 20 minute drive for Brow Top and Adjacent Land Site
Distance 0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total (Minutes)
0-2.5 1,194 958 1,669 2,265 1,479 371 7,936
2.5-5 2,253 1,616 2,204 3,965 3,080 775 13,893
5-10 2,436 1,591 2,383 4,129 3,250 678 14,467
10-15 4,961 3,398 5,288 9,307 6,956 1,691 31,601
15-20 5,558 3,774 5,632 9,831 6,986 1,474 33,255
Total 16,402 11,337 17,176 29,497 21,751 4,989 101,152
Table 2.6 Total population within a 20 minute drive for the existing Workington Leisure Centre
Distance 0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total (Minutes)
0-2.5 1,248 880 1,111 1,708 1,172 266 6,385
2.5-5 1,964 1,549 2,412 3,744 2,789 751 13,209
5-10 2,425 1,559 2,555 4,403 3,414 722 15,078
10-15 3,095 2,065 3,294 5,867 4,044 854 19,219
15-20 7,932 5,510 8,107 14,076 10,466 2,424 48,515
Total 16,664 11,563 17,479 29,798 21,885 5,017 102,406
2.26 Not surprisingly, given the location of the two sites being less than 2 miles from each other, the population profile is similar in age, although the Workington Leisure Centre has circa 1,000 more population in this catchment.
Age profile
2.27 Research has shown that rates of participation in sport and physical activity are typically higher amongst young people and decline with age, and therefore the age profile of each catchment population has also been analysed.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 9
2.28 As the tables below show; in terms of age profile, there are no real significant differences in the composition of each catchment population.
Table 2.7 – Comparison of Population Profiles
Distance 0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total (Miles)
1 mile – B 1,307 1,071 1,809 2,606 1,816 550 9,159
1 mile – W 1,318 1,030 1,776 2,411 1,577 402 8,514
20 mins – B 16,402 11,337 17,176 29,497 21,751 4,989 101,152
20 mins – W 16,664 11,563 17,479 29,798 21,885 5,017 102,406
T = Brow Top and W = Workington Leisure Centre
2.29 Clearly the prevalent age groups in the 1 mile and 20 minute catchments are the 40 – 59 year olds with the 60 – 79 year olds being the second highest within 20 minutes, however these groups tend not to have a high propensity to participate in sport compared to the younger age groups. The important 25 to 39 age group is relatively the same for the 20 minute catchment but more are captured at Brow Top when using a 1 mile catchment.
Market Segmentation
2.30 Sport England market segmentation data models particular groups and provides information on sporting behaviours and attitudes as well as motivations for and barriers to taking part in sport. This research builds upon the Active People Survey, the Department for Culture Media and Sport's Taking Part Survey and the Mosaic tool from Experian.
2.31 There are 19 market segments have been created from an analysis of the English population (18+ years). Each segment exhibits distinct characteristics, with information covering specific sports that people take part in and reasons why people do sport, together with the level of interest in and barriers to doing more sport.
2.32 By applying this information to demographic and socio-economic data for a catchment around the facilities, the model is able to estimate the likely behaviour and activity patterns of residents within the catchment. In addition to being used to determine which types of facilities are most appropriate to meet resident's needs, the model can also be used as a prerequisite to any intervention programmes to facilitate greater activity levels.
2.33 The tables below illustrate the market segmentation for a 1 mile (1.6 km) radius around each site and compares the results to the national average. It should be noted that the catchments above use a 1 mile as the crow flies catchment. The following colour codes have been used in the table:
% of the population is higher than the national average for that group
Top 5 groups that have the highest proportion of the population within the
catchment area
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 10 combat sports, low combat Preferred Activities Activities Preferred 11 11 Team sports (e.g. football), combat sports and weight training Social activities, swimming and keep fit classes Keep fit classes, racquet sports, swimming and likely to have private gym membership High intensity activities, weight lifting, High sports competitive and technical court games individual activities, team Exercise classes, games, swimming and gym Very active, keep fit and gym related activities, winter sports and swimming likely to have private gym membership water sports, skiing, Very active, technical sports, team games, individual activities, personal fitness and likely to have private gym membership and swimming facilities for leisure Visiting may take children bowling or ice skating Team sports, football, (e.g. darts)intensity social activities Social activities, 10 pin bowling and low intensity 4.9% 5.9% England % England % nd in a 1 mile radius catchment % 6.5% 5.5% 5.0% 4.3% 7.0% 8.6% Catchment 831 831 1,011 1,011 Catchment Age band 36 -45 36 -45 36 -45 Kev Tim 26 – 35 427 3.6% 8.8% Chloe Chloe 18 – 25 210 1.8% 4.7% Name Alison 36 – 45 142 1.2% 4.4% Jamie 18 –25 774 Jackie Leanne 18 –25 595 Table 2.8 2.8 Table Anal ysis for Brow Top and Adjacent La Market Segmentation Segment
Centre Leisure New Workington for Proposed Report 1 – Competitive Male (Urban) Ben 2 – Team Drinker 18 – 26 Friend 3 – Fitness Class 390 4 – Supportive Single 3.3% Female 5 – Career Focused Helena 4.9% 26 – 35 6 – Settling Down Male 406 7 – Stay at Home Mums 8 – Middle England Mum 3.4% League 9 – Pub 4.5% 10 – Stretched Single Mum Paula 26 -35 385 3.3% 3.7% ave In
and s, which t sports, technical activities, walking,
in the catchment. Preferred Activities Activities Preferred
12 12 12 Walking, swimming, table tennis, golf and Walking, swimming, keep fit classes. Low intensity, walking, fishing, darts and Low intensity, walking, fishing, darts pool Individual and peer darts, pool, bowls, golf, swimming Swimming, fishing, golf, lower intensity and Swimming, fishing, golf, bowls Team sports, racque Team sports, sports, fitness club member and competitive sports Swimming, exercise classes, gym and walking Swimming, walking, keep fit and cycling low intensity activities Walking and Low intensity, bowls, walking and dancing bly 14 are more likely to utilise gym and bly 14 are g. We note the key segments 1 to 6 who h g. We note the key segments 1 to 6 who as prevalent segments terms of health and fitness participation,terms of health and fitness
e will become a very important issue. 14 and 19. These groups preferred activities14 and 19. These 8.6% 4.9% 8.0% England % England % % 9.0% 5.6% 6.1% 8.6% 6.0% 3.7% 3.2% 2.1% 6.3% 4.0% 11.8% Catchment terms of the main income drivers for sport and leisure facilitie terms of the main income drivers for sport
663 384 1,058 1,058 1,019 1,379 ng. Segments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and possi ng. Segments 3, 4, 5, 6, Catchment e centre for the health and fitness suit the national average. This is worrying in This is worrying the national average. in the catchment district are 8, 9, 11, in the catchment
tchment identifies only Brenda (segment 14) low intensity activities, swimming and walkin 55
65+ 100 100 65+ 0.8% 4.2% 66+ 66+ Age band 46 -65 56 -65 56 – 65 56 – 65 590 5.0% 6.8% 46 – 55 46 – 55 46 – e are not included in the top 5. gmentation analysis is that in gmentation analysis
Joy* Terry 56 -65 710 Name Frank* 66+ 746 Phyllis Phyllis Philip* Philip* Norma Elsie & Brenda Arnold* Ralph & Roger & Segment exercise facilities. As can be seen, the ca a higher propensity to participat and swimmi fitness memberships are health and One of the key issues in this se One of the key issues in this include; team sports, health and fitness,
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre addition, only segment 4, Leanne, is above addition, only segment 4, Leanne, is above therefore theprogramming at th pricing and It can be seen that the prevalent segments
2.35 2.34 11 – Comfortable Mid Life 11 – Comfortable Male 12 – Empty Nest Career Ladies Elaine* Retirement Couples 13 – Early 14 – Older Working Female Boy Old 15 – Local Woman 16 – Later life Retired 17 – Comfortable Couples Year Man 18 – Twilight 19 – Retirement Home Single 3, 14,
4, 5, 7,
Preferred Activities Activities Preferred
13 13 13 evalent segment in the borough. Keep fit classes, racquet sports, swimming and likely to have private gym membership High intensity activities, weight lifting, High sports competitive and technical court games Team sports (e.g. football), combat sports and weight training individual activities, team Exercise classes, games, swimming and gym Social activities, swimming and keep fit classes Very active, keep fit and gym related activities, winter sports and swimming likely to have private gym membership water sports, skiing, Very active, technical sports, team games, individual activities, personal fitness and likely to have private gym membership and swimming facilities for leisure Visiting may take children bowling or ice skating a preferred activity but the segments 3, a preferred England % England % tional average and enjoys swimming. tional average in a 1 mile (1.6KM) catchment % exercise classes. Therefore 1 alongside their gym membership or exercise classes. Catchment nly Brenda (segment 14) is a pr Brenda (segment 14) is nly Catchment t around the Workington Leisure Centre t around the Workington Leisure 8, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 state that this is 14, 17 8, 12, 13, ysis for Workington Leisure Centre prevalent segment but is above the na Age band Tim 26 – 35 395 3.4% 8.8% Chloe Chloe 18 – 25 189 1.6% 4.7% Name Jamie 18 –25 563 4.8% 5.5% Alison 36 – 45 140 1.2% 4.4% Leanne 18 –25 422 3.6% 4.3% Table 2.9 Market Segmentation Anal Segmentation 2.9 Market Table Segment
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre In terms of swimming segments 3, 4, 5, 7, In terms of swimming facility 8, 12, are more likely to use the pools as a secondary the pools as a primary visit, and o likely to use 17 and 18 are However, segment 18, Frank is not a However, segment 18, Frank is not a The table below details the 1 mile catchmen
2.36 2.37 1 – Competitive Male (Urban) Ben 2 – Team Drinker 18 – 26 Friend 3 – Fitness Class 251 4 – Supportive Single 2.2% Female 5 – Career Focused Helena 4.9% 26 – 35 6 – Settling Down Male 287 7 – Stay at Home Mums 8 – Middle England Mum 2.5% 4.5% Jackie 36 -45 493 4.2% 4.9% ts s
se combat sports, low combat t sports, technical
peer activities, walking,
Preferred Activities Activities Preferred
14 14 14 Walking, swimming, table tennis, golf and Walking, swimming, keep fit classes. bowls, golf, darts, pool, bowls, golf, swimming Individual and Swimming, fishing, golf, lower intensity and Swimming, fishing, golf, bowls Team sports, football, (e.g. darts)intensity social activities Social activities, 10 pin bowling and low intensity racque Team sports, sports, fitness club member and competitive sports Swimming, exercise classes, gym and walking Swimming, walking, keep fit and cycling and Low intensity, walking, fishing, darts pool low intensity activities Walking and Low intensity, bowls, walking and dancing ts in the catchment, with no other segmen g. In regards to utilising gym and exerci gym utilising In regards to g.
15 and 19. These groups preferred 15 activitie 5.9% 3.7% 4.9% 3.7% 8.0% England % England % % 9.4% 7.6% 4.6% 6.1% 9.6% 8.2% 5.0% 2.1% 6.0% 4.0% 13.8% Catchment
886 886 537 939 583 1,090 1,090 1,122 1,603 Catchment in the catchment district are 9, 10, 14, in the catchment
es Brenda (segment 14) as prevalent segmen
55
65+ 68 65+ 4.2% 0.6% 66+ 66+ Age band 36 -45 36 -45 26 -35 46 -65 56 -65 56 -65 56 – 65 56 – 65 583 5.0% 6.8% 46 –
Kev Joy* Terry Paula Paula Name Frank* 66+ 697 Phyllis Phyllis Philip* Philip* 46 – 55 781 6.7% 8.6% Norma Elsie & Brenda Arnold* Ralph & Roger &
Segment facilities, the catchment also only identifi include; team activities, swimming and walkin sports, social activities, low intensity It can be seen that the prevalent segments
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre
2.38 9 – Pub League 9 – Pub 10 – Stretched Single Mum Mid Life 11 – Comfortable Male 12 – Empty Nest Career Ladies Elaine* Retirement Couples 13 – Early 14 – Older Working Female Boy Old 15 – Local Woman 16 – Later life Retired 17 – Comfortable Couples Year Man 18 – Twilight 19 – Retirement Home Single
combat sports, low combat t sports, technical
Preferred Activities Activities Preferred r, segment 18, Frank is not a not r, segment 18, Frank is
15 15 15 Team sports, football, (e.g. darts)intensity social activities Social activities, 10 pin bowling and low intensity and Low intensity, walking, fishing, darts pool Swimming, walking, keep fit and cycling Visiting leisure facilities for swimming and swimming facilities for leisure Visiting may take children bowling or ice skating racque Team sports, sports, fitness club member and competitive sports of swimming segments likely to use the pools a s of swimming segments likely to use the pools England % England % t in green) are as follows: green) are as follows: t in % 9.4% 5.9% 7.6% 3.7% 9.6% 4.9% 8.2% 3.7% 13.8% 8.0% Low intensity, bowls, walking and dancing Centre Leisure Existing Catchment segment in the catchment. Howeve
% 7.0% 4.2% 4.9% 7.0% 4.2% 8.6% 9.0% 6.7% 8.6% Brow Top Catchment
66+ 11.8% 66+ Age band 46 -65
Kev 36 -45 8.6% Terry 56 -65 6.0% Name Philip* Philip* 46 – 55 Elsie & Arnold*
Table 2.10 – Summary of Prevalent Segments inTable Catchments Segment above the national average that have propensity forterms health and fitness. In Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre primary visit, again only Brenda (segmenta prevalent 14) is primary visit, again only prevalent segment but is above the national average. In summary, in both catchments, the prevalent segments (with highes
2.39 8 – Middle England Mum League 9 – Pub Jackie 10 – Stretched Single Mum 36 -45 Mid Life 11 – Comfortable Paula Male 26 -35 14 – Older Working Female 3.3% Boy Old 15 – Local Brenda 19 – Retirement Home Single
2.40 An assessment of the table above provides a mixed picture within the 1 mile catchment, with many of the prevalent segments at the existing Workington Leisure Centre requiring low intensity activities or non-leisure centre type activities although as previously noted Brenda enjoys swimming and keep fit and Kev who enjoys football and team sports, but it involves more watching than participating.
2.41 In terms of Brow Top and Adjacent Land, there are a number of similar segments, but only two of the segments have a greater percentage of population (Top 5) within the catchments are greater than the existing Workington Leisure Centre catchment being Jackie and Philip, both who like fitness and swimming.
Car access
2.42 The proportion within each of the site catchment areas which do not have access to a car can influence the amount of visits the centre receives. Due to the close proximity of the Brow Top site to the borders of both the St Michael’s Ward and the St John’s Ward, we have combined the information in order to get a more accurate picture of the area.
2.43 In the St John’s Ward, 22% of the households do not have access to a car (546/2,487) whilst 37% of households covered by St Michael’s Ward do not have access to a car (941/2,516). This combines to 1,487 households (30%) who do not have access to a car. These groups will need to rely on public transport to access the leisure centres or will have to walk.
2.44 In terms of the current Workington Leisure Centre site, we have combined the wards of Moorclose and Moss Bay for similar reasons. In the Moorclose Ward, 35% of the households do not have access to a car (796/2,246), whilst in the Moss Bay Ward, 41% of households do not have access to a car (936/2,284). In combination, this totals 1,732 households without a car or 38%.
Deprivation and health
2.45 The table below compares the level of health of each of the sites. We have also combined the St Michael’s and St John’s Wards for the Brow Top site, and the Moorclose and Moss Bay Wards for the Workington Leisure Centre.
Table 2.11 Summary of Health within the Ward catchments
Leisure Workington Brow Top Brow Top Workington Brow Top Centre Leisure Health Site (St Site (St Leisure Site % (Moor- Centre Michael’s) John’s) Centre % close) (Moss Bay)
Very Good 2,128 2,440 43.0% 2,007 1,886 39.1%
Good 1,793 1,929 35.0% 1,741 1,664 34.2%
Fair 882 732 15.2% 809 903 17.2%
Bad 311 250 5.3% 322 422 7.5%
Very Bad 73 88 1.5% 99 104 2.0%
Total 5,187 5,439 100.0% 4,978 4,979 100.0%
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 16
2.46 With almost similar levels of population within each ward, it can be seen that the level of health is also similar, with health slightly better at the Brow Top site. However, the benefits from health interventions from the leisure centres are likely to be similar to both catchments and the site location will not have a significant benefit to the town in addressing health inequality.
Economic Inactivity
2.47 In terms of unemployment, the existing leisure centre site Wards has 476 people unemployed (6.7%) comprised of 5.9% (212) in the Moorclose Ward and 7.5% in the Moss Bay Ward. In regards to the Brow Top site, the combined unemployment is significantly lower at 4.6% (368 people). This figure includes 5.7% (222) at St Michael Ward and 3.6% (146) in St John’s which is the lowest unemployment figure across the 4 wards.
Current location of Leisure Centre
2.48 The current location is situated away from the town centre in a housing estate which serves the local community well. However, given its location away from the town centre, the facility becomes a local community facility rather than being recognised as a borough asset.
2.49 Location is key for any business, and the relocation to the town centre has a number of advantages in terms of increased access, increased footfall, reputation and income generation which speaking with the existing operator could be 10% to 15% higher.
Closure of School Site
2.50 We understand that the school is withdrawing from the site and there may remain access to the sports hall for the community but there may not be as the County Council has not made a decision on what to do with the vacated site at this time.
2.51 Although we have not seen any detailed proposals for the existing site, we would suggest that if it is given over for housing development, then monies generated from the development under Section 106 Planning Agreements, could be used to provide a level of sports or leisure facility/activities to support the local community.
Master Plan for Town Centre Area
2.52 We understand that the Council is considering the redevelopment of the town centre to the north of the Allerdale House building which may include expanded outdoor leisure facilities creating a green sporting recreation and culture corridor extending from the Harbour to Workington Hall and accessible to some existing sports facilities e.g. Cricket Club.
2.53 It is said that location is key to any development but including a new leisure centre in this new town centre hub will provide the opportunity for the facility to:
Raise the profile of the facility and sport and leisure by placing the leisure centre at the heart of the new investment scheme
Increase the benefit from increased footfall from customers accessing other on site facilities,
Identify sport and leisure as a strategically important asset by its location in the town and the new development
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 17
Provide improved access to the facility from customers outside the traditional catchment areas
Provide the opportunity for synergy in the management of the outdoor leisure facilities from the leisure centre.
Current Memberships
As part of our analysis, we have received membership maps from the Trust covering fitness memberships and swimming lessons. These are attached as Appendices to the report. It can be seen that there is a good coverage from across the area and given the distance between the sites and the local competition, we do not see that the relocation of the facility will have any major impact on these memberships, especially given the town centre site and access routes.
What does this mean for the Council?
The total population of the Borough of Allerdale is 96,422 of which circa 80,000 people are over the age of 16 (83.1%).
The population within 1 mile of each proposed site is slightly higher at the Brow Top site, however, the population under the age of 24 years is younger at the existing Leisure Centre site.
Similarly for a 20 minute drive time catchment, the population profile is alike, although the Workington Leisure Centre has circa 1,000 more population in this catchment.
The prevalent age groups in the 1 mile and 20 minute catchments are the 40 – 59 year olds with the 60 – 79 year olds being the second highest within 20 minutes, however, these groups tend not to have a high propensity to participate in sport compared to the younger age groups. The important 25 to 39 age group is relatively the same for the 20 minute catchment but more are captured at Brow Top when using a 1 mile catchment.
The prevalent segments for 1 mile of the Brow Top site are Jackie, Kev, Philip, Brenda and Elsie and Arnold. For a 1 mile catchment of the existing site, Kev, Paula, Brenda, Terry and Elsie and Arnold are prevalent segments. All segments in both catchments have above average levels of activity.
Car Access is greater for the current site with 1,732 (38%) households having access to a car compared to 1,487 (30%) households for the Brow Top site. However, the Brow Top site is close to the town centre and public transport links.
Health of the population is similar for both sites, with health slightly better at the Brow Top site. However, the benefits from health interventions from the leisure centres are likely to be similar to both catchments and the site location will not have a significant benefit to the town in addressing health inequality.
Unemployment in the Wards surrounding the Brow Top site is significantly lower (4.6%) compared to the existing site (6.7%).
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 18
3. Proposed Facility Mix
Proposed Facility Mix
3.1 The table below shows the initial proposed facility mix for the new Workington Leisure Centre in comparison to the current facilities. Unlike the current facility, all of the indoor facilities will be placed into one building.
Table 3.1 Proposed Facility Mix
Current Workington Leisure Proposed Workington Facilities Centre Leisure Centre
Sports Hall 4 courts 4 courts
Health and Fitness Gym 50 stations (extending to 75) 100 stations plus kids gym
2 multi-purpose studios (also Studio Yes Spinning meeting rooms)
8 lane x 25m, dismountable Main Pool 6 lane x 25m floor
Learner Pool Yes Yes
Spectator Seating 150 seats on balcony 100 seats
Squash Courts 4 courts (3 in use) 2 courts
Yes individual male and Yes individual male and Dry Changing female female
Yes individual male and Yes individual male and Wet Changing female female
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 19
Current Workington Leisure Proposed Workington Facilities Centre Leisure Centre
Cafe, bar and catering Catering Service Cafe, bar and vending facilities
Soft Play Area Yes (in squash court) Yes
Football Changing Yes for outside pitches Yes for 3G pitches
Climbing N/A 2 story climbing wall
Spa/Sauna N/A Health Suite (Pool Hall)
6 x 6-a-side pitches and 1 UEFA standard 3G training 3G Facility N/A pitch – floodlit (154m x 80m maximum to accommodate multi-sports)
Boxing Gym Yes No
2 Rooms (1 after gym No - moved to multi-purpose Meeting Rooms extension) dance studios
Activity Hall 2 courts/Studio No
Yes hard surface - size of 2 All Weather Space See 3G football facility pitches
3.2 The table shows that the proposed new leisure centre will increase the amount of health and fitness stations by 25-50 as well as include a kid’s gym. The swimming pool will be increased to an 8 lane pool from 6 lanes with a moveable floor in addition to a learner pool (circa 13m x 7m).
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 20
3.3 There will be two multi-purpose studios built which alternatively can be used for meeting rooms and therefore separate meeting rooms will not be required. The amount of squash courts have been proposed to drop to 2 from the current 3 in use.
3.4 The two major new proposed inclusions in the new Workington Leisure Centre, the two story climbing wall and the 3G floodlit pitches which includes 6 x 6-a-side football pitches and one UEFA standard training pitch (106m x 71m including run offs) that can also be used for rugby league and rugby union (154m x 80m including run offs).
3.5 The all-weather hard surface, activity hall and boxing gym will not be included in the new facility.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 21
4. Supply and Demand
Introduction
4.1 This section considers the supply and demand of each proposed facility type at the new Workington Leisure Centre. These facilities are:
Swimming Pool
Health and Fitness Gym and Studio
Sports Hall
Squash Courts
Soft Play
Climbing Facility
3G Pitches
Health Suite (Spa/Sauna).
4.2 For the different facility types above, we have analysed the supply and demand for the new facility from the centre of the town.
Swimming Pools
Supply
4.3 Currently, the swimming pool at the Workington Leisure Centre and Pool is the only swimming facility in the town of Workington. The main pool is a 6 lane 25m pool (312.5m2) and the training/learner pool is 7m x 15.25m (106.75m2) giving a total water supply at the facility of circa 419m2. There are also wet changing facilities available.
4.4 In terms of other competition in the area, the table below shows the supply of swimming pools within a 20 minute catchment of the centre of town.
Table 4.1 Swimming Pool Supply within a 20 minute catchment of the centre of town
Distance Distance Site Postcode Details (Miles) (Minutes)
4 lane 18m pool. Pay and Netherhall Play/Sports Club and Community Sports CA15 6NT 5.9 8 Community Centre Association/Private Use (Part of a School)
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 22
Distance Distance Site Postcode Details (Miles) (Minutes)
Cockermouth Leisure 4 lane 25m pool. Pay and CA13 9JR 9.3 16 Centre Play
6 lane 25m pool and Copeland Swimming CA28 8RW 10.3 17 learner pool. Pay and Pool, Whitehaven Play
4.5 The closest facility to the centre, excluding the Workington Leisure Centre, is the Netherhall Community Sports Centre. The site is an 8 minute drive and has a 4 lane 18m pool. However, the facility is part of the Netherhall School Specialist Sports College, and therefore the pool is not available to use at all hours for the public, especially during school hours.
4.6 The closest 25m pool is at the Cockermouth Leisure Centre, also run by the Trust, which is 16 minutes away from the proposed site. This facility has a pay and play 4 lane 25m pool predominantly serving the town of Cockermouth.
4.7 The only other facility within a 20 minute catchment is also a pay and play facility at the Copeland Swimming Pool in Whitehaven. This facility is the largest with a 6 lane 25m pool and a learner pool available for public use.
Demand
4.8 In order to establish the demand of swimming pools in Workington, we have looked at the Sport England Sports Facility Calculator (SFC) and the Sport England Facility Planning Model (FPM).
4.9 The SFC calculates that there is 1,830m2 of pool water in Allerdale, which equates to 19.3m2 per 1,000 people. This is significantly higher than the average national provision of 10.23m2 per 1,000 people. Workington is also situated nearby the district of Copeland, where the provision of pool water is also above average with 13.56m2 per 1,000.
4.10 The FPM has analysed Allerdale and concluded that the 5 main swimming pool sites within Allerdale are all in the main urban areas of Workington, Cockermouth, Keswick, Maryport and Wigton. Therefore, this helps to explain the fairly high satisfied demand within the catchment areas, particularly on foot.
4.11 The FPM also calculates unmet demand for swimming and in Allerdale it is estimated to be 129m² (14.4%). This is the equivalent of 60% of a 4 lane x 25 swimming pool, which is less than 1 pool. This unsatisfied demand is also spread across the Local Authority area and not all located in one particular place. The unmet demand is located outside the catchment areas of all of the current supply of swimming pools.
4.12 Copeland is similar to Allerdale in relation to unmet demand, where it is estimated 133m2 (28.6%) is unmet demand which equates to 63% of a 4 lane x 25m pool.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 23
4.13 In addition to the FPM model, we have benchmarked the current income for the swimming pool at Workington Leisure Centre. The 2011/12 results show a total swimming income of £210,020 with the current pool water supply of 419m2. This equates to £501per m2. This is significantly lower than our internal benchmark of £824, suggesting the swimming pool might be under-utilised or that prices are below average.
4.14 Furthermore, we have looked at the income to date between April and September 2012 and estimated the benchmark for this financial year. After 6 months the pool has created £85,247 in income. If this figure is extrapolated for a year, the pool is currently only going to create £407 per m2, a £94 drop in income per m2.
4.15 Therefore, the FPM data concludes that there are enough pools in good locations within both authorities. Allerdale also has a significantly higher amount of pool water m2 per 1,000 people than the national average, with unmet demand only in the rural areas.
4.16 Currently, Workington Leisure Centre and Pool has circa 419m2 of pool water from a 6 lane 25m pool and a learner pool. The new facility is proposed to have an 8 lane 25m pool and a learner pool (13m x 7m), which will equate to higher amount of pool water of circa 516m2 which is a circa 100m2 increase in pool water space
4.17 The current benchmarking suggests the pool is underperforming and this may be due to the age of the current facility and the separate buildings on the current site. In addition, the social grading within the 20 minute drive time of the catchment is poor in relation to disposable income due to large amounts of C2, D and E groups (Appendix A). Thus, pricing of the new site will be very important. A new facility may help to attract new customers by providing a brand new pool to the area, hence increasing the financial performance.
4.18 Therefore, despite the lack of demand for extra pool water in the area, we believe an 8 lane 25m pool and learner pool should be included in the facility mix to replace the current 6 lane pool. At the present time, financially the current pool is potentially underperforming and a new facility may attract additional people from the surrounding local towns to address this. Workington has the largest town population in the Borough and therefore the provision of the 8 lane pool will provide a regional competition swimming pool for the area.
4.19 The flexibility provided by the moveable floor will enable a range of activities in the main pool for all ages. The learner pool will be able to provide a more attractive proposition for parents and their young children with its shallow and warm water, ideal for young children when learning to swim.
4.20 The facility will also be located in one building, providing a more attractive offer for users, especially for those who would like to use other facilities in conjunction with the pool, for example the health and fitness suite. Therefore, we believe that there is sufficient demand for an 8 lane 25m swimming pool and learner pool.
Health and Fitness Gym
4.21 The Workington Leisure Centre and Pool currently has a 50 station gym that will soon be extended to a 75 station gym, as well as a 30 bike spinning studio and a 2 court hall that can be used as a studio.
4.22 In order to identify the supply and demand of health and fitness in the area, The Leisure Database Company (TLDC) has provided a latent demand report.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 24
Latent Demand
4.23 Demand for health and fitness has been determined from information provided by TLDC. For the purposes of health and fitness, TLDC have estimated 7 miles as a catchment area based on a number of factors which include a map review, where competitors are, where clusters of population live and where TLDC think people would realistically travel to and also try to limit too much overlap with similar facilities.
4.24 The data supporting the latent demand calculation for health and fitness has been provided by TLDC. Health and fitness uses catchment areas to establish the likely potential users of a particular site. This can also depend upon the quality and the pricing of the facilities. TLDC have used a 7 mile drive time to establish the likely user penetration (or propensity to participate) for health and fitness using Mosaic, which is the world’s most widely used geo-demographic population segmentation system.
4.25 Mosaic UK classifies the population, using very small geographical areas such as a single postcode, into 61 different types, which are in turn aggregated into 11 broader groups.
4.26 Over 400 different data variables have been used in its creation, making it the most accurate and up to date way of identifying and describing population trends within the UK population. It is sourced both from the regular Census and also from other dynamic sources such as the Electoral Roll, consumer credit activity, the Post Office Address File, house prices and council tax information, all updated annually.
4.27 TLDC has combined the Mosaic System with the postcodes of millions of health & fitness members to build up the largest ever profile of what sort of people are – and are not – participating in fitness. This helps to demonstrate where there has been a relatively high take up for fitness (i.e. a high proportion of a particular Mosaic group or type) or where only a small proportion of inhabitants of a particular kind have participated, usually for social or economic reasons. These are the penetration rates for the various Mosaic groups / types.
4.28 TLDC proceeds to use these current levels of participation across the various Mosaic groups and types – ‘penetration rates’ – to make accurate assessments of the unmet (‘latent’) demand for health & fitness in a given catchment area, building in allowance for current and future competition, and, where relevant, new housing development. Those Mosaic types with the highest penetration rates are said to be the kind of people with the ‘highest propensity’ to participate.
4.29 The table below summaries the projected latent demand for health and fitness within a 7 mile catchment, provided by TLDC.
Table 4.2 Latent demand for health and fitness
Workington Population Projection
Total Demand in Catchment 2,542
Consideration for Decay/Excessive Competition -1,700
Demand (members) 842
4.30 The supply/demand model multiplies the population figures for the catchment area, by Mosaic type, to a series of penetration rates based on the figures being achieved, all
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 25
things being equal, by comparable sites, with due weighting made for sector (public/ private), likely price point and regional factors.
4.31 The 83,515 population within the 7 mile catchment gives rise to a demand of 842 people. At the time, this included the estimated current members at the Workington Leisure Centre. Based upon the information in the table above, and assuming the industry average of 25 members per station, this would suggest demand for only 34 stations. However, the current facility has 50 stations, soon to be increasing rising to 75 stations and the Trust’s records indicate that there are currently 1,153 members (excluding swim only), equating to a demand for 46 stations.
4.32 The issue of the demand report figure being lower than the current number of members is due to a number of reasons.
Firstly, the 7 mile catchment used to calculate the demand includes the populations not just of Workington but also Whitehaven, Maryport and even the fringes of Cockermouth.
Generally, a health and fitness catchment is likely to be around a 10 minute drive time.
The vast majority of the population within this large catchment would have limited incentive to leave their home towns and travel to Workington to an old centre.
The demand report was conducted based on the original centre, whereas a new centre would be more likely to attract additional members from surrounding towns with brand new facilities.
4.33 The current facility is generating circa £5,144 per station of health and fitness income compared to a benchmark of circa £7,800 per station. This also indicates that the current gym is not fulfilling its potential although this could be because of the quality of the facility or the pricing structure.
4.34 The census report for a 20 minute drive time suggests that the population is only circa 83,000 and is below the national average in all of the age groups under 35. The age groups 35+ are all above the national average and these age groups contribute to 58% of the population. The 55-64 and 65+ age groups make up 28% of the population and are likely to participate in lower intensity activities rather that join a gym.
4.35 The market segmentation also suggests that 3 out of the 5 predominant segments, Brenda, Terry and Elsie and Arnold are most likely to enjoy low intensity activities, swimming and walking, although they may have an attraction to keep fit or gym activities. However, in general their fitness levels are lower than average. Kev, another predominant segment is most likely to participate in team games such as football rather than keep fit and gym, while Philip is the most likely segment to participate. Therefore, the segmentation in the area has lower propensity to utilise gyms.
4.36 The current plans for the new Workington Leisure Centre suggest a 100 station gym. Without an updated latent demand report analysing the demographics of the area and current membership numbers, we believe that the demand for the new Workington Leisure Centre should not exceed the current proposed facility’s stations.
4.37 The Trust have indicated that they currently have circa 1,150 members and based upon the number of stations (50) this equates to circa 23 members per station and there are currently queues to use the equipment at peak time. We would agree that a new
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 26
facility is likely to increase this demand by circa 25% with a target of 1,450 which equates to circa 75 pieces of equipment at 20 members a station.
4.38 Therefore, we suggest that the new facility should have no more than 75 stations with an expectation that membership figures will be circa 1,450 following the opening of the new facility and appropriate marketing.
Sports Halls
Supply
4.39 Sports halls are available in a selection of facilities in Workington providing a variety of activities such badminton and 5 a side football. They are often multi-purpose and in use throughout the day, becoming a large income generator for a centre. Currently, Workington Leisure Centre and Pool has a 4 court sports hall.
4.40 Participation of physical activity at a sports hall will predominantly come from within the local area, with people unlikely to travel long distances to use a hall. Therefore, we have only looked at supply within Workington.
4.41 The table below shows the supply of sports halls within Workington.
Table 4.3 Supply of Sports Halls in Workington
Distance Distance Site Postcode Details (Miles) (Minutes)
Sports Stainburn School CA14 4EB 1.5 2 Club/Community and Science College Association. 4 courts.
Sports Southfield CA14 5BH 2.4 6 Club/Community Technology College Association. 4 Courts
Sports Lakes College (West CA14 4JN 3.4 6 Club/Community Cumbria) Association. 6 courts.
4.42 In addition to the table above, there are 4 activity halls located at Stainburn School (2 halls, 1 court each), St Josephs Catholic High School (1 court) and Beckstone Primary School (2 courts). Sport England class sports halls as needing to be at least 3 courts or above, and therefore they are not included in our analysis.
4.43 There are currently a combined total of 18 courts in the Workington area, including the current Workington Leisure Centre. The sports halls identified in the table are all part of a college or school. Therefore, the availability of the halls is restricted to out of school hours and at weekends. The Workington Leisure Centre is the only facility where the sports hall is available on a pay and play basis throughout the day.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 27
Demand
4.44 Similarly to swimming pools, demand can be calculated with the help of the SFC and the FPM.
4.45 According to the SFC, there is currently a supply of 39 courts in the Borough of Allerdale including small provisions. The 39 courts has been calculated at 0.53 courts per 1,000 people or 0.41 courts per 1,000 population taking into account Sport England’s guidelines of 3 courts or above for a sports hall. These figures are above the national average. The neighbouring District of Copeland’s sports hall provision is also above the national average, with 0.41 courts per 1,000 people.
4.46 The FPM has calculated that there are 8 main sports halls in Allerdale with at least one in the 5 main urban areas. The level of satisfied demand in Allerdale (i.e. demand for sports halls which can be satisfied because it is located inside the catchment area of a sports hall) is the equivalent of 3,616 visits (87.9%). This figure for Allerdale is the third highest in Cumbria of the 6 Local Authorities and just slightly above the Cumbria average. This is in contrast to the neighbouring Copeland where there is the equivalent of 2,626 visits (86.1%). This is the second lowest in Cumbria and in the North West region behind Eden Di strict.
4.47 The unmet demand for Allerdale is calculated at 3 courts, which is 12.1%. However, similarly to pools, the unmet demand is spread across Allerdale and is not focused on one area. This is similar in Copeland where 3 courts or 13.9% is unmet demand.
4.48 When analysing the current performance of the sports hall, we have benchmarked the financials of the current Workington Leisure Centre and Pool compared to our internal database. Our benchmark is currently £15,761 per court. The income for the sports hall at Workington Leisure Centre and Pool for the financial year 2011/12 was £49,614 which equates to £12,404 per court. This is lower than our recommended benchmark, suggesting the current sports hall is underperforming. In addition, from the 6 months at the beginning of this financial year, 2012/13, we can estimate that the current income per court is £11,216. However, this may increase over the winter months. Similarly to swimming, this may be due to the poor social grading of the area and the current age of the facility.
4.49 Therefore in conclusion, the FPM suggests that there currently are enough sports halls in Allerdale and nearby Copeland in good locations. The results also suggest that Allerdale is only slightly below the unmet demand levels with facilities in the urban areas sufficient. Therefore provision of a sports hall should continue at the new Workington Leisure Centre in order to provide the public with replacement facilities.
4.50 In relation to size, the current facility is 4 courts and the proposed facility is 4 courts. The current facility is underperforming financially but this may be due to its age and the competition in the peak times during the evenings. Pricing will also be vitally important due to the poor social grading of the area. A new facility will be in better condition than the competition in the area and this will provide an additional attractiveness factor.
4.51 Therefore, the new facility in combination with correct pricing will attract increased income levels through increased usage and potentially reach the benchmark level. A new 4 court hall will be more flexible than a new 3 court hall, of which the current finances suggest would be most appropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that the new sports hall remains the same size at 4 courts in order to provide the public with the same amount of provision.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 28
Squash
Supply
4.52 Currently, the only squash provision within Workington is the 4 courts currently based at the Workington Leisure Centre and Pool. However, one of these courts is used for soft play so therefore there are only 3 courts available for public use. There are two standard courts and one glassed back squash court.
Demand
4.53 There is no recognised demand model for squash, however, an indication of demand for squash at the new proposed Workington Leisure Centre can be assessed via the utilisation and income currently achieved at the existing centre. It is estimated that generating circa £12,000 of income per court per year is a reasonable benchmark for financial performance. In the end of year financial results for 2011/12, Workington Leisure Centre and Pool generated only £8,626 compared to £10,428 in 2010/11 and £11,346 in 2009/10.
4.54 This decline may have been due to the quality of the facilities. However, it may also be likely to be due to the decrease in popularity of the sport for that particular socio economic demographic.
4.55 Currently the income suggests that there is demand for less than one squash court. However, it should be recognised that this income is probably mainly generated during peak periods when bookings are on-going simultaneously on more than one court (and therefore it is not as simple as to say that all existing bookings could be accommodated on one court).
4.56 In the plans for the new Workington Leisure Centre, there is currently provision for 2 courts, reduced from the current 4 at the Workington Leisure Centre and Pool. We recommend that if squash is required at the facility, then two courts is a sensible provision at the centre as a new facility should attract additional users to play squash. Installing a moveable wall between the courts will also make it a more flexible space for other additional uses.
Soft Play
Supply
4.57 A soft play area is designed to encourage health and fitness in children, and promote physical activity. Every soft adventure play area is used to accommodate the natural development of children through play incorporating running, bouncing, rolling, climbing, interactivity, special awareness, scrambling, swinging, sliding crawling etc. These facilities can be used by toddlers to young children, depending upon the design of the facility and equipment.
4.58 There is currently only a small soft play area at the Workington Leisure Centre and Pool located in one of the squash courts. The table overleaf shows the supply of competition within a 20 minute drive time of the centre of town.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 29
Table 4.4 Supply of Soft Play with a 20 minute catchment of the centre of town
Distance Distance Site Postcode (Miles) (Minutes)
Monkey Madhouse, Workington CA14 3YT 0.8 1
Funtastic, Workington CA14 3BA 1 2
Clown-A-Round, Maryport CA15 6LW 5.6 8
Jordan's Jungle Funhouse, CA13 9RH 9.7 14 Cockermouth
Jungle Jack's, Whitehaven CA28 7SJ 8.9 14
Chicos Play Centre, CA28 7HZ 8.9 15 Whitehaven
Billy Bears Fun Centre, CA28 9AN 9.6 17 Whitehaven
4.59 As can be seen by the table, there is a large provision of soft play within the 20 minute drive time catchment. The two facilities in Workington are a very short distance from the centre of town.
4.60 Monkey Madhouse is only a minute drive from the centre of town. The facility has recently moved premises to a new location. The site is open 6 days a week, except Mondays, from 10am to 4pm. It costs £3 per hour of play or £4 for unlimited play on a weekday and £5 for unlimited play on a weekend. The facility can also hold parties for up to 25 people.
4.61 Funtastic is also located a short distance from the centre (2 minutes’ drive time). Funtastic is a 10,000 square metre play area with a 9m slide and ball cannons. The site is open 7 days a week, 10am to 6pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 4.30pm on a Sunday. It costs circa £3.50 for 2 hours play. Parties are also available at this facility, and there is a café for parents to relax in.
Demand
4.62 Some of the metrics used to establish demand include number of children within the catchment, the social economic and demographic profile of the catchment and the child population as a percentage of all population within a catchment population.
4.63 We have identified through a Census report (Appendix A) from TLDC the minimum amount of dependent children in the 20 minute catchment and this is set out in the table below.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 30
Table 4.5 Child Population in Catchment
Workington Workington Catchment Catchment 1 Child 2+ Children
0 – 4 years 1,563 4,262
5 – 11 years 1,250 5,070
Total Children 2,813 9,332
Total in Catchment 12,145
4.64 It can be seen that there are at least 12,145 children between the ages of 0 and 11 years old within the centre of town drive time catchment area but in reality most use of soft play comes from the 0 – 4 year olds.
4.65 There are not any known market penetration rates for this type of activity, although there is a principle that bigger is best. We have seen demand expressed at number of visits per m2 of soft play ranging between 3.25 (560m2 facility) and 3.8 (750m2 facility) per annum.
4.66 A profitable business operating a 560m2 facility (equivalent to almost a four court sports hall) would hope to attract circa 750 visits per week, including pay and play and party bookings.
4.67 In the catchment, taking the 12,145 children and using a multiplier of 3.25 this generates potential market demand of 39,471 visits per annum or 759 visits per week.
4.68 Currently, the soft play at the Workington Leisure Centre is small and located in a squash court. The last financial results for the Workington Leisure Centre (2011/12) calculated the income for the soft play facility to be £13,853. At a price of £2.70 per visit, this equates to 5,131 visits a year or 99 visits a week. Therefore, a possible new facility will have to extract circa 600 extra visits a week from the surrounding competition.
4.69 There are currently 2 facilities within 2 minutes of the proposed site in Workington that are specialist soft play facilities. We have not visited these sites but we feel that unless the Trust is able to create a large specialist soft play zone which is prominent at the site, it may be exposed to financial risk, given the size and location of the competitor facilities.
4.70 Therefore, we do not recommend a soft play facility larger than the current size at the new Workington Leisure Centre. The current facility is good for parents to utilise while using other facilities at the leisure centre. Potentially this activity could be incorporated within the two new squash courts (with moving wall) or within the sports hall during off-peak periods instead.
3G Pitches
Supply
4.71 The new Workington Leisure Centre proposals includes 6 small 3G pens for 6-a-side football and one UEFA standard 3G training pitch, which can be split into 2 7-a-side
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 31
pitches. The pitch will be a maximum of 154m x 80m (12,320m2)and it will be floodlit in order to be suitable for football, rugby league and rugby union.
4.72 The table below shows the supply of other Synthetic Turf Pitches (STP) in a 20 minute catchment of the centre of town, both full size pitches and small pitches for small sided football.
Table 4.6 Supply of STP in a 20 minute catchment
Distance Distance Site Postcode Type Details (Miles) (Minutes)
Sports St Joseph’s Club/Community Catholic High CA14 3EE Sand 1 3 Association. 34m School x 52m, floodlit.
Sports Grasslot Club/Community Welfare Sports CA15 8DD Sand 5.2 7 Association. 18m and Social Club x 35m, floodlit.
Sports Netherhall Club/Community Community CA15 6NT 3G 5.9 8 Association. Sports Centre 65x100m, floodlit.
Whitehaven Pay and Play. CA28 9DB 3G 9.4 16 AFC 60x100m, floodlit.
Sports Cockermouth Club/Community CA13 9HF Sand 9.6 17 School Association. 60 x 100m, floodlit.
Pay and Play and Sports Cumbria Sports CA28 8SD 3G 10 17 Club/Community Academy Association. 30 x 80m, floodlit
Sports St Benedict's Club/Community Rugby Union CA28 9SH 3G 10.3 19 Association. 60 x Football Club 100m, floodlit.
4.73 It is clear that there is no full size floodlit STP in Workington.
4.74 The closest facility that can be used for small sided football is the St Joseph’s Catholic High School. The facility is a 3 minute drive from the proposed facility and comprises of a small STP (34m x 52m) that is sand based and floodlit. It costs between £25-30 to hire the whole pitch per hour. The hire of the facility is influenced by the school hours, and therefore generally is only available during peak times in the evening.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 32
4.75 The closest 3G pitch is located at Netherhall Community Sports Centre, where there is a full size STP (65m x 100m). There is currently no specialist 6-a-side 3G pitches within the 20 minute catchment area. There is a small 18m x 35m sand STP based at Grasslot Welfare Sports and Social Club that can be used for small sided football.
4.76 In regards to local football small sided leagues, currently there is a 5-a-side league at the Workington Leisure Centre in the sports hall. The closest outdoor league is at the Netherhall Community Sports Centre Soccer Sixes league. However, this league has stopped due to a lack of interest with the maximum interested teams being 12 falling to 7 before the competition was abandoned.
4.77 There are also leagues in the nearby towns of Cockermouth at the Cockermouth School sand based STP on a Tuesday night and at Whitehaven at St Benedict’s Rugby Union Football Club on Sunday evenings on a 3G pitch.
4.78 The Trust currently run a league for 6-a-side football at the Sheepmount in Carlisle on a Monday night on the STP and the competition is FA affiliated.
Demand
4.79 There is currently no generic demand model for small sided football, however, analysing the population, demographics and supply of competition, we can conclude the approximate demand for a STP facility.
4.80 We would expect a 15 to 20 minute drive time be used as the catchment area for a small sided facility. A commercial 5 or 6-a-side football centre operator would typically look for circa 150,000 people within a 15 minute drive time or 170,000 people within a 20 minute drive time in order for the site to be considered viable. Currently, the population in a 20 minute catchment according to the Census report (Appendix A) is 83,256 taking into account the some of the populations of Cockermouth, Maryport and Whitehaven in addition to the population of Workington.
4.81 In addition, the key target group for the facility would be the age group 16-34 years. Currently within the 20 minute catchment, the 15-19, 20-24 and 25-34 year age groups are below the national average, contributing to circa 20,000 people. Therefore, the lack of younger adults in combination with the low catchment population suggests that a commercial facility would not work in this area. However, it is important to look at other key drivers before reaching a conclusion.
4.82 The Census report also identifies the social grade of the population. Economic groups AB and C1 generally indicate the highest potential for leisure spend and the 20 minute drive time area is below the national averages on this indicator. The only groups above the national average in the drive time are the C2, D and E groups which have little or no disposable income for leisure activities such as small sided football. However, the C1 group has the largest proportion of the population of the groups which is a positive.
4.83 Using the Sport England market segmentation tool, the key target groups for 5 a side football are Ben (competitive male urbanites), Jamie (sports team drinkers) and Kev (pub league team mates). Kev is the only the segment within the 10KM catchment that is liable to use the facility in significant numbers, making up circa 3,400 people.
4.84 Therefore, the current plan for the new Workington Leisure Centre includes six 3G 6-a- side pitches and one training 3G pitch up to a maximum size of 154m x 80m to accommodate multi-sports. In terms of local competition for specialist small 3G pitches, there are no other specialist facilities bar the current small sand based at St Joseph’s Catholic High School (34m x 52m) which is only a 3 minute drive away.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 33
4.85 However, the facility is sand based and only available out of school hours. The facility is also small and unable to host leagues due to its inability to comply with multiple matches. The Grasslot Welfare Sports and Social Club has a specialist small sided football pitch, however, there is only one pitch that indicates leagues cannot be run on this facility easily.
4.86 In regards to leagues, there is currently a 5-a-side league at the leisure centre. This could be expanded outdoors with the correct 3G facilities, as the closest other league is at Netherhall Community Sports Centre, which is based on a 65m x 100m pitch split into smaller pitches (although as previously stated this league was abandoned due to lack of interest). However, this league was only run once a week which suggests there is a lack of demand. This is also the case of the leagues run at Cockermouth School and St Benedict’s Rugby Union Football Club.
4.87 This lack of demand for the leagues is reflected by the population and the demographics of the area. The demographics of the area do not appear to be sufficient to support a dedicated facility and, whilst there is a lack of competition in the area for a specialist facility, which in general may be seen as a positive opportunity, the fact that the existing leagues run only once per week indicates that there is not excess demand within the area.
4.88 Discussions with the Trust indicate that they have concluded that they need one 6 aside match per night to generate sufficient income to meet their proposals. However, this would suggest as a minimum there would be 84 players per week interested in playing in a league (which is not unreasonable). Given that the other leagues only operate once a week, this could suggest that there is not the demand for 6 aside leagues.
4.89 In regards to a standard 3G training pitch, there are already 6 STPs in the 20 minute catchment area, of which 4 are 3G. However, in Workington there are currently no STPs that are full size. Therefore, the demand suggests there is not a requirement for six 6-a-side pitches, however, we recommend that a full size 3G pitch could be included within the facility mix (154m x 80m which would cover football and rugby including run offs) which will attract the population of Workington to the area. Currently, the population has to travel to Maryport, Netherhall and Whitehaven.
4.90 A large 3G pitch can also be temporarily split up into sections and used for a league event on one or two nights a week depending on future demand. This is similar to the other leagues within the catchment. This will allow for multi-use of the 3G for different sports, allowing the facility to maximise flexibility of use and income.
4.91 However we recognise that the Trust have local knowledge and although they have not produced any demonstrable demand data, it may be possible for the Council to consider the Trust investing its own money in the development of the 6 aside pens and to keep all the revenue from this facility (outside the management fee), whilst underwriting income from the STP.
Climbing
Supply
4.92 Indoor climbing walls provide a range of climbing adventures for those of all abilities throughout the year. Climbing activities can be fun for all ages but generally are more attractive to the younger market, with younger people supporting the party income.
4.93 Indoor bouldering can also be included at indoor climbing facilities and it involves climbing on a wall undertaken without a rope and is generally limited to small climbs with a safety mat below the participant to prevent injury.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 34
4.94 High quality climbing and bouldering facilities can be rare and so users will travel for longer distances to access one. We have studied Workington and the surrounding area to identify the competition for this facility type and summarised the results in the table. The table below uses a catchment of 45 minutes from the centre of town.
Table 4.7 Local supply for Climbing and Bouldering in a 45 minute catchment
Name Postcode Miles Minutes
Cockermouth Sports Centre CA13 9JR 9.3 16
West Lakes Academy CA22 2DQ 13.6 21
Calvert Trust CA12 4QD 20.0 33
Keswick Climbing Wall CA12 4RN 23.8 34
4.95 The table shows that there are currently 4 walls within a 45 minute drive time catchment. The closest facility is at the Cockermouth Sports Centre, another centre operated by the Trust, where there is a 7m high wall. The wall is available from 9am to 9pm.
4.96 The West Lakes Academy wall is only open to students whilst the Calvert Trust wall is focussed on individuals with disabilities.
4.97 The Keswick Climbing Wall is the only other facility in the catchment. The site is relatively new, with an 8m wall for climbing and bouldering. The wall has over 40 top rope climbs. The facility is open for lessons, around £10 for a public lesson with up to 10 people or £30 for a one on one lesson for one hour. The site costs £5 for members and £6 for non-members to participate recreationally.
4.98 In addition, there are also 3 walls (2 available to the public) located in Carlisle, including the Trust’s The Sands Centre.
4.99 We also understand the Council have opened a £400,000 investment in a “Clip and Climb” facility at Maryport which is likely to lure young people away from more traditional climbing walls.
Demand
4.100 There is currently no identified demand model for climbing walls and bouldering. However, by understanding the demographics of the local catchment we can make an assessment for the level of demand.
4.101 Climbing attracts a wide variety of ages including children for parties, young people between 16 years of age and 24 years of age and adults aged between 25 and 34.
4.102 The population in a 20 minute catchment is currently 83,256 people. A large facility requires circa 120,000 populations in a 20 minute drive catchment. Therefore, this is not positive in terms of a large facility such as the proposed 2 story facility at the new centre.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 35
4.103 Within this 20 minute catchment, the under 15, 15-19, 20-24 and 25-36 years age groups combine to create circa 34,000 of the population, however, these age groups are all below the national average. The only age groups above the national average are aged 35 and above, and therefore this is also not positive in attracting climbing’s target audience which is generally a younger demographic. This is backed up by the Census report that shows that the number of households with a dependent child or children is below average (42.02% compared to England at 43.42%).
4.104 Social Grading is also an important aspect when looking at demand. Currently, the catchment is over the national average in groups C2, D and E. This is a negative due to these social groups having less disposable income for leisure activities such as climbing. However, the C1 group does have the largest proportion of the population, which may help to attract visitors to a climbing centre.
4.105 We have analysed the demand and believe there is not enough demand for a large- scale climbing wall at the new Workington Leisure Centre. Currently, the closest wall is at Cockermouth Sports Centre, only a 15 minute drive away, although we understand that this generates a small income but is old and outdated.
4.106 A large facility requires 120,000 people within a catchment, and the 20 minute catchment has a population of only 83,256 including Cockermouth. Despite the large proportion of the C1 group, there is a poor social grade in the area, meaning less disposable income for sporting activities and this may be reflected by the poor participation rates in Allerdale’s KPI results.
4.107 In addition, for climbing activities people may travel around 45 minutes or more to participate and Carlisle is approximately a 50 minute drive from the proposed site. However, the population of Carlisle are very unlikely to travel to a facility in Workington due to 3 climbing walls already being located in the town, including The Sands Centre.
4.108 However, despite there not being demand for a large climbing facility, a small local facility may provide potential to generate circa £20k to £40k of income, and therefore we recommend a small climbing facility at the new centre. With the aid of the Trusts local knowledge, we have recommended that the wall is in a flexible space.
Health Suite
4.109 It is not specifically clear from the Trusts proposal the overall context of the new spa and sauna facility. However, it is our understanding that the facility is simply a health suite which is accessible from the pool hall and will include a steam room and sauna only. Some of these also include a Jacuzzi.
4.110 A full spa facility would be defined as having a number of heat and ice treatments, a hydrotherapy pool and treatment rooms. These require separate management and specialist staff and normally require a catchment of circa 45/60 minutes for a proper day spa and 20 minutes for treatments.
Supply
4.111 Although there is not a central database of spa facilities across the UK, we have sought to undertake local and regional research on the number and type of spa facilities from the Good Spa Guide and our own independent research.
4.112 We have focussed on the facilities within an hour drive time of Workington. This hour drive time is due to the suggested travel times for a day spa experience that includes
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 36
relaxation, spa and treatments and also considers the location and demographics of the area.
4.113 The table overleaf summarises the competition within an hour of the centre of Workington.
Table 4.8 - Summary of competition in a 60 minute catchment
Distance Distance Type Name Postcode (Miles) (Minutes)
Caesar's at Washington Central Hotel, Hotel CA14 3AY 0.6 2 Workington
Armathwaite Hall Country House Hotel, Hotel CA12 4RE 15.8 24 Keswick
Day Oxley's at Underscar (Blue Fish Spa) CA12 4PH 22.6 34
Hotel Lodore Falls Hotel, Keswick CA12 5UX 25 40
Day Bannatyne Spa Carlisle CA3 0AD 33.9 48
Day DreamsDay Spa, Carlisle CA3 0DE 34.6 50
Hotel Rothay Garden Hotel, Grasmere LA22 9RJ 34.4 52
Hotel Daffodil Hotel and Spa, Grasmere LA22 9PR 35.1 53
Hotel The Wordsworth Hotel and Spa LA22 9SW 34.8 53
Hotel North Lakes Hotel and Spa, Penrith CA11 8DT 39.9 57
Day Oxley's at Ambleside (Blue Fish Spa) LA22 9BX 38.6 60
4.114 In addition, the table below shows the current facilities at each of the spas in the catchment.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 37
Oxley’s
Ambleside Ambleside
North Lakes North Lakes
Hotel Wordsworth
Hotel Daffodil
38 38 38 Rothay Garden Garden
DreamDays
Spa Spa Bannatyne Bannatyne
Lodore Falls Lodore Falls
Oxley’s Underscar Underscar
Hall Armathwaite in the local competition in the local competition
Caesar’s Caesar’s
s s
r r e e m g o w
n Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre
o o n u R i h
o a l S L
t a
n n s d o Table 4.9 Current facilities 4.9 Current Table a u e o o r R
s F a
d n r f e o u c n Facility Facility Aroma Room Gym Hydrotherapy Pool I I M M Rain Dance Shower Relaxation Area Restaurant/Food and Drinks Area
Oxley’s
Ambleside Ambleside
North Lakes North Lakes
Hotel Wordsworth
Hotel Daffodil
39 39 39
Rothay Garden Garden
DreamDays
Spa Spa Bannatyne Bannatyne
Lodore Falls Lodore Falls
Oxley’s Underscar Underscar
Hall Armathwaite
Caesar’s Caesar’s Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre
s d e B
r
e t a Facility Facility types) Sauna (All Saunarium Beds Solarium/Sun Spa Pool/Jacuzzi/Hot Tub Steam Room Swimming Pool (Indoor) Swimming Pool (Outdoor) Treatment Rooms Tropical Shower/Rain W
Spa Demand
4.115 There are a variety of spa offerings within an hour drive of the proposed new Workington Leisure Centre sites. The spas in the area are all ‘hotel’ spas that provide spa breaks or spa days or ‘day’ spas that provide day or half day experiences.
4.116 The closest facility, Caesar’s at the Washington Central Hotel in Workington is only 2 minutes from the centre of town. This facility provides a basic spa of a pool, steam room, sauna, solarium, Jacuzzi, gym and a relaxation area. The facility is a leisure club; however, a daily membership can be purchased for £15 in order to access the facilities.
4.117 In addition, the hotel restaurant is also available at an addition cost. There are no treatment rooms, and no spa days available and therefore we would place this facility in the same competition as any proposed spa (health suite) at the leisure centre as it does not offer any unique experiences such as an ice fountain or a tropical shower.
4.118 The majority of facilities have the standard facilities that a health club or hotel would offer as a spa (although this is really defined as a health suite), such as a sauna and steam room accompanying a swimming pool, gym and treatment rooms. The proposed facility at the new Workington Leisure Centre would be classed as a ‘health suite’ that offers a limited range of experiences.
4.119 The closest facility that offers a range of experiences that could be classed as a ‘wet spa’ is at the Armathwaite Hall Country House Hotel in Keswick. The facility is a 24 minute drive away and is the second closest facility to the centre of town. The facility offers the standard gym, relaxation area, steam room, sauna and 10 treatment rooms. In addition to this, the facility also has an aroma room, a tropical shower, rain dance shower and a hydrotherapy pool. There is also an outdoor hot tub.
4.120 The facility offers spa breaks as well as spa days and half days. An example of the services they offer includes a four hour half day ‘Escape’ package costs £70 (£80 Saturday) for use of the facilities and a 30 minute treatment. An example of a full day costs £125 (£148 Saturday) for a 60 minute treatment, use of the facilities and a 2 course lunch.
4.121 The Oxley’s at Ambleside also offers some addition facilities such as an ice fountain, tropical shower and an outdoor hot tub in addition to the standard facilities. However, this facility is a 60 minute drive time and on the outer vicinity of the catchment.
4.122 Overall, the competition within the drive time area of 60 minutes offers different experiences; however, they are spread amongst the facilities and are not focused at specific sites. There is not a facility that offers a large range of experiences with facilities generally including a few experiences on top of the standard facilities of a steam room, sauna, pool etc. such as Armathwaite Hall.
4.123 There are a range of further heat and ice experiences that could possibly be included in a proposed facility at the Workington Leisure Centre such as a salt room, a plunge pool, treatment rooms etc. amongst others that would provide market differential and be classified as a “wet day spa” facility which could generate increased income, but is likely to be risky given the demographic and its location with 50% of the catchment being the sea.
4.124 The health suite proposal adjacent to the pool hall would provide improved facilities for users, which may aid retention and generate a reasonable level of pay and play income of between £10,000 and £16,000 per annum, subject to a detailed review of the business.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 40
5. Recommended Facility Mix
Summary and conclusion
5.1 The Council is considering a number of facility proposals for the new Workington Leisure Centre. The aim of this report was to review the level of market demand for the proposed facility mix within the catchment area of the site.
5.2 Based on the analysis of the catchment area within this report, we believe that there could be demand for some of the activities included as part of the proposed facility mix and would make the following recommendations as set out in the table below.
Table 5.1 Summary and Recommendations
Facilities Conclusions
It is important for swimming pool provision to remain in Workington. The Borough of Allerdale and District of Copeland both have good provision. The current centre is underperforming financially with 419m2 of pool water. The proposed 8 lane facility and learner pool will provide 516m2 Swimming Pool and we recommend that the proposed 8 lane pool (with a moveable floor) and learner pool should be included within the new facility mix as a new facility will increase visits from surrounding areas, providing the largest pool in the catchment.
The current facility is extending from 50 stations to 75 stations in the near future. The latent demand report only estimated demand in the area for 36 stations. However, this report was conducted on the existing site with a large drive time catchment whereas a new facility will attract further Health and Fitness members. After analysis of the demographics, the population Gym and the current user numbers, we recommend that a more realistic target is for a 375m2 gym with an initial circa 60 stations (25 members a station) with the opportunity to increase to 75 stations with provision for three weights and warm up/warm down areas.
Given the increase in memberships and growth in classes we recommend a 200m studio with moving wall to allow for Dance Studios two separate 100m2 studios, which will provide flexible space for both large and small classes. Storage is also required for spinning bikes and dance class equipment.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 41
Facilities Conclusions
Workington Leisure Centre and Pool has a 4 court sports hall which is the only facility that provides public use throughout the day. The proposed new site also includes a 4 court sports hall. We concur with this proposal and recommend that a 4 Sports Hall court hall is maintained, as this is more flexible than a 3 court hall. Current provision is good in the local authority and the current income is below the benchmark. However, a new facility is likely to attract additional users and reach the circa £15,000 benchmark per court.
Currently, there are 4 courts at the Workington Leisure Centre and Pool, however only 3 are in use. We recommend that two courts are included in the proposed facility mix. The current facility is struggling financially, and considering Squash the current facility is the only provision in the area, it is likely the popularity of the sport is declining however a two court space with a moveable wall could provide enough flexibility to increase income from this area.
There is currently a small soft play facility that is estimated to receive 99 visits a week. We recommend that a soft play facility is not included in the proposed facility mix due to the Soft Play current competition of Workington and the lack of young children to participate. We recommend that soft play activities could be incorporated within the sports hall and squash court during off-peak periods.
The proposed plan for the new Workington Leisure Centre is to include six 6-a-side pitches and a UEFA standard 3G training pitch. After analysing the area, we believe that there is not significant demand for a commercial facility for small sided football, and the facility would be more beneficial having the training pitch only (full size 154m x 80m maximum), that can be used for multiple sports (including Rugby) including the potential for the pitch to be 3G STP Pitches split into small sided football pitches. The town of Workington currently has no 3G pitch provision. We recommend an artificial pitch 3G is provided covering where possible football and rugby (154m x 80m max including run offs). Subject to demand and land availability the provision of the 6 aside pens are considered as a Phase 2 project which is subject to the annual performance of the new 3G pitch.
The plans for the proposed new leisure centre include a 2 storey climbing wall. After analysing the demographics and Climbing the population and potential return, we recommend that a small climbing wall should be included in the proposed facility mix.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 42
Facilities Conclusions
There are a number of facilities in the catchment that offer similar or additional facilities. The proposed spa as defined in the Trusts presentation appears to be a health suite at pool side, and will enhance the offer to residents and users, but will not generate the levels of income that a full day spa Health Suite can generate, subject to demand. Given the location and competition, it is unlikely that there would be sufficient turnover within the wet day spa business to provide a breakeven operation. We would recommend a health suite only as this improves the offer to users and the market positioning of the facility.
Based upon the proposed facility mix in this revised report, it is clear that a “Costa Coffee” type catering arrangement would be well suited to the site, providing it with an exclusive feel. Catering should be limited to Panini style food or sandwiches but no other type of hot food. We would Catering suggest that the bar is linked with the catering facility, offering a selection of alcohol products that have a long shelf life (e.g. bottle beer rather than kegs) and only a limited range. Vending should also be provided within the facility. We would recommend a café, vending and bar facility (without kitchen).
5.3 This facility mix has been used to develop the indicative business plans for the new facility, with associated adjustments to income and costs to make a comparison with the current net direct costs of the current facility, assuming that all central costs etc. remain unchanged.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 43
6. Site Evaluation
6.1 Following the establishment of the potential demand and the facility mix, this section reviews the possible sites for the new Workington Leisure Centre. The Council went to public consultation on three different sites, being:
Site 1 - Brow Top and land adjacent to it
Site 2 - Brow Top Car Park
Site 3 – Moorclose
6.2 As can be seen, the Council have two proposed sites at the Brow Top site, Site 1 is a larger site with land adjacent to the car park included. Whereas, Brow Top Site 2 is a very tight site and this would result in a long building with high perimeter area.
Process
6.3 In order to undertake the site options evaluation the process followed the following five stages:
Stage 1 – Issue list of agreed questions to relevant Council department
Stage 2 – Meet with each Council department and discuss questions and responses
Stage 3 – Undertake a visit to each site
Stage 4 – Complete Site Assessment Appraisal Evaluation table
Stage 5 – Evaluate and Report
Evaluation criteria
6.4 The Consultants prepared a long list of questions relating to all aspects of the site options evaluation process covering a range of issues from legal, planning, leisure, environment and regeneration and policy. Details of these are set out in Appendix B. These questions were signed off by the Council and were then issued to each Council department, together with a timetable for meetings and a map of the locations.
Evaluation Scoring
6.5 No weightings were applied to the questions so that they have equal share of importance with each other.
6.6 In terms of scores to be applied to each question, we applied a 0 – 5, with 0 being the lowest score and five being the highest. A description of the scores is set out in the table below.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 44
Table 6.1 - Scoring Criteria
Score Classification Definition
0 Unacceptable Extremely High risk/high capital costs/completely against national or local policy that makes the scheme completely unviable or is defined as a “Show Stopper” in relation to the particular evaluation question.
1 Weak High risk/high capital costs/against national or local policy objectives that makes the scheme difficult to achieve of deliver in relation to the particular evaluation question.
2 Satisfactory Response largely meets the requirements of national or local policy, has some issues that may give rise to an increase in capital costs or reductions in services, or may be detrimental to users and non-users alike.
3 Good Project meets current requirements relating to the service and national and local policy. No issues that are not in-line within the risk profile of the scheme at this stage of its development.
4 Excellent Project adds value and will exceed current requirements relating to the service and national or local policy.
5 Outstanding Project substantially adds value and will far exceed current requirements relating to the service and national or local policy.
Technical Consultees
6.7 Details of the consultees from the Council that were interviewed and contributed to the evaluation process are set out below.
Table 6.2 - Consultees
Council Department Key Officers
Member Councillor Mike Heaslip
Planning and Policy Kevin Kerrigan – Head of Development Services
Julie Ward – Planning Policy Team
Regeneration Andrea Hines – Regeneration Officer
Environment Sian Tranter - Environmental Health Officer
Sarah Gray – Environmental Protection Officer
Legal Trevor Gear/Ruth Pallister – Legal Officers
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 45
Council Department Key Officers
Property and Estates Linda Doyle - Estates Manager
Leisure Charles Holmes – Head of Community Services
Rebecca Stamper – Sports and Leisure Officer
Completion of the Evaluation Matrix
6.8 The matrix was completed by the Consultants based upon written and verbal feedback arising from the issue of the documents to the Council and meetings on 24th July 2013 with Council officers. The scoring was undertaken by the Consultants.
Evaluation Results and Key Issues
6.9 The evaluation matrix is shown in Appendix B to the report. Each of the 42 questions, with the exception of the public consultation question has been scored for each site. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.
Table 6.3 – Evaluation Final Scores
Site Option Score
Site 1 - Brow Top and land adjacent to it 135
Site 2 - Brow Top Car Park 128.5
Site 3 - Moorclose 112.5
6.10 It should be noted that the maximum score is 210 (42 x 5) and using the average score (assuming all questions scored 3) is 126 points.
6.11 It can be seen that the Brow Top and the adjacent land site scored the highest, with Site 2 second and the Moor Close site in third place. If weightings were applied, it is likely that the results would be in the same order, but the scoring differential would be significantly higher.
Summary of each Option
6.12 We have sought to provide a summary of each of the sites based upon the detailed information set out in Appendix B to this report, our meetings with the Council and the site visits that were undertaken. There is some duplication in the summaries but this is purposeful to ensure that where similar issues arise, they are covered in the same detail as other options.
Option One - Brow Top and land adjacent to it
6.13 The Brow Top and Cloffocks site has a central location to Workington and forms the edge of the town centre and shopping precinct sitting next to the Brow Top car park. The footfall through the existing town centre is strong and the retail mix is very good.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 46
6.14 The location on this site could provide a very good anchor to the end of the shopping centre and encourage footfall from the community to extend further than the top of the existing ramp. This option integrates additional A3 unit provision, together with cinema and bowling. This is described as a Family Entertainment Centre (FEC) as the feedback has suggested that this will further enforce the leisure centre as an edge of shopping precinct anchor.
6.15 The land has a legal designation as an area for sports, leisure and recreation. This also includes retail as part of the Councils development plan. The proposal however, ensures that the leisure element of the FEC is the only element extending onto adjacent land and the retail elements stay on the Brow Top car park area.
6.16 Its central location in the town centre ensures that public transport access, via bus, train, taxi, etc. are on the doorstep to the site. Indeed the bus station and the train station are only 10 minutes away from the site for pedestrians. There are very good cycle routes to the suburb areas of Workington. Sustainability with regards to travel would score very well on any BREEAM assessment carried out on this site.
6.17 Due to the leisure building extending into the adjacent land, it provides more breathing space around the Brow Top car park and allows more car parking spaces to remain than under Site Option 2.
6.18 As part of the regeneration strategy of the Council, the leisure centre will improve the health and well-being in the community, with its enhanced facilities to the current mix. .
6.19 It will be important to integrate the community at key stages in the design process to ensure they feel part of the development. Historical evidence has shown that in doing this, it ensures they look after the building when it’s operational and have a sense of pride to it. Regeneration usually involves the creation of enhanced areas of neighbourhoods through development. The introduction of a leisure centre into this area would increase the footfall in the town centre and should improve local business and employment. This will be further enhanced through the introduction of the cinema and bowling box and retail elements (A3).
6.20 It is also usual for the introduction of leisure centres to increase house prices in the immediate area. The town centre of Workington has an eclectic mix of architecture and the new leisure centre should help deliver a catalyst for a new modern approach and the future regeneration of the area. Indeed, its position and location to the rugby and football stadia, cricket pitch, bowling-green and river, would help create a sports and entertainment strip. This may be looked at as part of a wider master plan for the area.
6.21 With regards to the environmental considerations, the Brow Top Car park and adjacent land site may have mine shafts located nearby and must have a full risk assessment if this site is preferred. There must also be a detailed exercise carried out with regards to the locality of key elements of the facility mix with regards to noise, light emission and any impact on air quality (from plant room areas for example) and any resulting impact on the local businesses and residents in the adjacent conservation area.
6.22 In terms of ecology, a report has been undertaken which states that the site will require careful consideration of the removal of Himalayan Balson and giant hogweed and the site may impact on the breeding of nesting birds and an inspection will be required prior to building.
6.23 A detailed inspection of trees will be required for the consideration of bats if the trees are removed. If the water course is affected by the development then a survey will be required on the impact on otters in the area. Where new planting takes place, consideration should be given to Scotts Pine for red squirrels.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 47
6.24 Developing on the adjacent land will also require a full environmental impact study and a full level 2 or 3 flood risk assessment will be required.
6.25 There are no specific services to be concerned about other than the possible requirement of a new substation if the incoming supply is not sufficient for a large leisure centre, with cinema, bowling and retail provision.
6.26 There are no specific legal problems anticipated. As with all the options, the mineral rights below ground (the council only own the ground surface and not the contents below ground), must be placed on a risk register and classed as high risk. The impact of the mineral rights must be looked at and mitigated early on in the design process. The Council is currently considering this.
6.27 The results of the public consultation exercise indicated that less than circa 46% preferred this site compared to 10% for Option 2 and 44% for Option 3. Although questions have been asked on the reasons for their preference, we have not seen these. This was the highest scoring site, but this is marginal.
Option Two - Brow Top Car Park Site
6.28 Brow Top Car park has a central location to Workington and forms the edge of the town centre and shopping precinct. The footfall through the existing town centre is strong and the retail mix is very good. The location on this site could provide a very good anchor to the end of the shopping centre and encourage footfall from the community to extend further than the top of the existing ramp.
6.29 Pedestrian movement generally stops at the current Wilkinson’s store as there are very little facilities to encourage migration past this point. The leisure centre would encourage this movement and take visitors down to the lower level and the possible sport and entertainment district. Most sports clubs and user groups are located within a short travel time (either by public transport or car) from the site.
6.30 The central location in town centre ensures that public transport access, via bus, train, taxi, etc. are on the doorstep to the site. Indeed the bus station and the train station are only 10 minutes away from the site for pedestrians. There are very good cycle routes to the suburb areas of Workington. Sustainability with regards to travel would score very well on any BREEAM assessment carried out on this site.
6.31 Following a review the Council confirms that Workington town centre has an over provision of car parking allocation and so loss of car parking spaces on the site would not be an issue. Whilst we would provide for car parking spaces, local to the leisure centre, we would expect the travel to the site by car to be much less than that of Moorclose.
6.32 As part of the regeneration strategy of the Council, the leisure centre will improve the health and well-being in the community, with its enhanced facilities to the current mix.
6.33 It will be important to integrate the community at key stages in the design process to ensure they feel part of the development. Historical evidence has shown that in doing this, it ensures they look after the building when it’s operational and have a sense of pride to it.
6.34 Regeneration usually involves the creation of enhanced areas of neighbourhoods through development. The introduction of a leisure centre on Brow Top would increase the footfall in the town centre and should improve local business and employment. It is also usual for the introduction of leisure centres to increase house prices in the immediate area.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 48
6.35 The town centre of Workington has an eclectic mix of architecture and the new leisure centre should help deliver a catalyst for a new modern approach and the future regeneration of the area. Indeed, its position and location to the rugby and football stadia, cricket pitch, Bowling Green and river, would help create a sports and entertainment strip. This may be looked at as part of a wider master plan.
6.36 With regards to the environmental considerations, the Brow Top Car park may have mine shafts located nearby and must have a full risk assessment if this site is preferred. There must also be a detailed exercise carried out with regards to the locality of key elements of the facility mix with regards to noise, light emission and any impact on air quality (from plant room areas for example) and any resulting impact on the local businesses and residents in the adjacent conservation area.
6.37 The Council must also be mindful of any tree preservation areas that are enforced on established trees on the adjacent embankment.
6.38 A full level 2 or 3 flood risk assessment will be required on the Brow Top car park site.
6.39 There are no specific services to be concerned about other than the possible requirement of a new substation if the incoming supply is not sufficient for a large leisure centre. Brow Top is a very tight site and this results in quite a long building with high perimeter area. This could result in higher capital costs compared to the other two sites.
6.40 The other impact of this tight site, is that it restricts (or in the worst case closes) the existing link road to the east of the site that currently connects Brow Top car park (passing under the footbridge). This may result in the building being recessed into the embankment to create a 3m access road (one way) and maintain the road linkage.
6.41 There are no specific legal problems anticipated. As with all the options, the mineral rights below ground (the council only own the ground surface and not the contents below ground), must be placed on a risk register and classed as high risk. The impact of the mineral rights must be looked at and mitigated early on in the design process.
6.42 An ecological assessment has taken place and the site has similar issues to Option 1, which stated that the site will require careful consideration of the removal of Himalayan Balson, it may impact on the breeding of nesting birds and an inspection will be required prior to construction. If the water course is affected by the development then a survey will be required on the impact on otters in the area. Also where new planting takes place, consideration should be given to Scotts Pine for red squirrels.
6.43 Although there is no giant hogweed on this site, the ecology report recommends that a Habitants Regulation Assessment is required by the Council in relation to Crayfish.
6.44 The results of the public consultation exercise indicated that less than 10% preferred this site compared to 46% for Option 1 and 44% for Option 3. Although questions have been asked on the reasons for their preference, we have not seen these.
Option Three - Moorclose
6.45 Moorclose has a strong “community” position, located on the outskirts of Workington.
6.46 Whilst there are a series of planned activities during a standard week, targeted specifically at the local community (such as youth club activities which aim to keep teenagers off the streets and into planned sport and recreational sessions), out of the 9 neighbourhoods of Workington, the Moorclose community, uses the leisure centre the least. These are quite
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 49
surprising statistics and may require further examination. Most sports clubs and user groups are located outside of the Moorclose community.
6.47 Due to the above demographic, most users of the centre tend to travel to the leisure centre by car. This is partly because the length of time it takes to travel by public transport is too long (especially when travelling from the centre of Workington). This does not offer the most sustainable means of travel to a major leisure centre and this is not helped by the train station and main bus station being located in the town centre and away from the centre. Moorclose does however have good cycle routes to and from the Town Centre.
6.48 As previously stated, as part of the regeneration strategy of the Council, the leisure centre will improve the health and well-being in the community, with its enhanced facilities to the current mix. It will be important to integrate the community at key stages in the design process to ensure they feel part of the development.
6.49 Historical evidence has shown that in doing this, it ensures they look after the building when it’s operational and have a sense of pride to it. Regeneration usually involves the creation of enhanced areas of neighbourhoods through development. It is difficult to envisage what regeneration (other than housing), the leisure centre and the surrounding external sports elements would deliver to Moorclose. It is doubtful that footfall would increase very much through the leisure centre doors based on the travel and demographic issues highlighted above.
6.50 It has been suggested that if Moorclose was not chosen as the preferred site, there may be a justification for maintaining a small youth club space to retain the important work done in the area with the younger members of the community. We understand that this may be achieved through a community asset transfer by the County Council for the existing Community Centre.
6.51 With regards to the environmental considerations, the Moorclose area is surrounded by mine shafts. Indeed there is a large shaft adjacent to the proposed site and therefore this may result in higher capital costs. A full risk assessment would need to be carried out if this is the preferred site.
6.52 There are no significant development constraints (planning constraints) within this site. However a survey will be required on the pavilion in relation to bats prior to planning permission, consideration of a planting scheme for red squirrel and there is potential for reptiles on the site and a survey will be required prior to planning. In terms of birds nesting and florna, these are similar to Option 1 and 2.
6.53 The land is made ground and therefore tests on the strata and depth to solid ground would need to be analysed. Other than the above, the impact of light emission, noise and air quality (fumes from plant spaces) are not going to impact on local residents due to the distance from them. This is a strong advantage over the other two options.
6.54 There are no specific services to be concerned about other than foul and surface water drains that are located below the proposed building position. These would most likely need diverting at an increased capital cost.
6.55 We also need to further understand, as part of the more detailed design process, the capacity of the local sub-station and the water discharge capacity from the backwash tanks of the pool. These could both carry high costs. Because Moorclose has an existing facility on the site, we would expect that the risk of additional requirements of attenuation of water and new sub stations would be low.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 50
6.56 There are no specific legal problems anticipated other than land title issues that need to be resolved. As with all the options, the mineral rights below ground (the Council only own the ground surface and not the contents below ground), must be placed on a risk register and classed as high risk. The impact of the mineral rights must be looked at and mitigated early on in the design process.
6.57 The results of the public consultation exercise indicated that 44% preferred this site compared to 10% for Option 2 and 46% for Option 1. Although questions have been asked on the reasons for their preference, we have not seen these. This was the second highest scoring site, but this is marginal against Option 1.
Key Issues to be considered
6.58 Although Site Option 1 achieved the highest scores there are a number of issues that will require further consideration on this site and the other sites. For completeness we have sought to highlight these below, although further detail can be found in Appendix B.
6.59 Mineral rights – the area of Workington is subject to mineral rights and any removal from the ground may be deemed as trespass. In addition, the cost of extracting these minerals may have a cost to the Council which during the consultation has been described as minimal and also substantial. This will need to be further examined as part of the feasibility study once the site is selected and built into the financial model.
6.60 Environmental issues – This relates primarily to the town centre sites where possible noise and light pollution will need to be considered, especially as the land is adjacent to a conservation area. Issues such as fixed plant within the buildings will need to be designed carefully to ensure that this does not adversely impact on users or residents.
6.61 Ecology – under all options there is a need to consider the impact of breeding birds. Under Options 1 and 2, if the water courses are affected then an otter survey will be required. Under Option 2 a Habitat Regulation Assessment is required prior to planning and Under Option 3 the pavilion will require a bat survey and a reptile survey prior to planning.
6.62 Community Asset Transfer – it is understood that there may be an application for a community asset transfer of the school sports hall and theatre. This will allow the provision of sport and recreation in the Moorclose area but could possibly incur the Council in subsidy that it may not be able to afford and may need to be added to the cost of the town centre scheme.
6.63 Impact of School and leisure centre closing on community – we understand that the school has withdrawn from the Moorclose site. If the leisure centre is closed, this could leave the area without any public provision and send a negative message to this community.
6.64 Historical nature of land adjacent to Brow Top – from previous planning applications and the historical use of the site for “Uppies and Downies” at the Easter Weekend, this could adversely impact on any future planning applications, although the provision of sports, leisure and recreation on the site may outweigh any adverse issues and publicity for the Council.
6.65 Classification of land as Village Green status – an application for Village Green status to protect the site in the Town Centre could be made, which may result in the Council not being able to use the site. An application cannot be made once a planning application is made (i.e. retrospectively)
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 51
6.66 Mining works – there are numerous mining shafts and tunnels over the Workington area and contact with the Coal Board will be needed and surveys to ensure that a new facility can be constructed and the additional costs of stabilisation will need to be established and included in the business case report.
6.67 Conservation area – Brow Top is situated adjacent to a conservation area which may result in limitations on the design of the new facility in terms of visual design, site lines and vistas from that area. Although planning does not believe this is a problem that cannot be resolved.
Summary
6.68 The table below sets out the final scores after the evaluation was completed.
Table 6.4 Evaluation Final Scores
Site Option Score
Site 1 - Brow Top and land adjacent to it 135
Site 2 - Brow Top Car Park 128.5
Site 3 - Moorclose 112.5
6.69 It can be seen that the Brow Top and adjacent land site scored the highest, with Site 2 second and the Moorclose site in third place. If weightings were applied, it is likely that the results would be in the same order, but the scoring differential would be significantly higher.
6.70 Although each of the site options scored better than the other sites on a number of different questions, in overall terms, and without weightings being applied to the questions, the Brow Top and adjacent site (Site 1) scored the highest against the other sites on the following areas:
Council objective – contribution to economic development
The increased attractiveness of Workington town centre as a major retail and leisure destination will have significant advantages for existing town centre businesses that will benefit from the additional footfall and linked trips associated with the centre.
Accessible location increases the attractiveness of the facility as an employer for those with limited transport opportunities, particularly younger people.
Potential provision of these services would increase the attractiveness of the town to business sectors that require suitable social facilities, as well as attractiveness to industries who may seek to offer associated or complementary services such as hospitality, etc.
Improvements for quality of life for residents and visitors through improved function, cultural and assembly opportunities.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 52
Council objective – improve the vibrancy of the town centre
Edge of centre location is ideal for large scale leisure facility which will increase the footfall within town centre, attractiveness of centre as a retail and leisure destination for residents and visitors, improve evening economy, increase linked trips and reduce the need to travel generally.
The development would increase the attractiveness of town centre residential units, therefore improving and promoting sustainability and the need of residents to travel or use their own car to access leisure uses.
At current time all major leisure facilities are provided in out of centre locations (cinema, bowling, sports centre) which are inevitably diverting trade away from the town centre, with significant implications for the centre's evening economy in particular.
A major leisure centre in this location would provide an anchor facility which would increase the presence and diversity of visitors to the centre at different times of the day and evening, and would provide a catalyst for further ancillary and associated businesses, such as restaurants and shops.
Improved revenue generation and reduced operating subsidy
Increased footfall opportunities from better access and cross fertilisation with the shopping area and proposed commercial leisure activities (e.g. cinema, bowling etc.) is likely to increase income from an increase footfall for the leisure centre site. This would be greater than the footfall from the shopping area only.
Opportunity to share site with other organisations
National planning policy strongly advocates the shared use of community facilities (commercial leisure) to the wider benefit of the population.
Potential to incorporate businesses corporate facilities (gym memberships etc.), community function and assembly rooms are all suitable options which are in deficit within the Workington locality.
It is planned to incorporate other leisure activities on the site including cinema and indoor bowling etc. that will complement the leisure centre.
Leverage of capital receipts from site
The proposal to enhance the area with a new leisure centre and outdoor sports facilities is likely to increase the values for the leisure retail elements of the site, resulting from increased footfall and recognition for the site as being the leisure hub of West Cumbria.
Land ownership
The ownership of land needs to be confirmed.
Public Consultation
Although a close run between the Moorclose site (Site 3) and the Site 1, the Brow Top site was marginally the peoples preference by under 2%.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 53
6.71 In conclusion Site Option 1 scored the highest and therefore is the site that provides the opportunity to meet the Council’s objectives, the best value of risk and capital costs and overall is better placed to increase footfall to the town and the leisure centre, which in turn will optimise the overall operational costs of the facility.
6.72 We have also highlighted a number of issues for further consideration; most of these are common with all the Site Options. On this basis, the Business Plan in the next section is based on the Site Option 1, Brow Top Car Park and land adjacent to it.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 54
7. Business Plan
Introduction
7.1 A business plan model has been prepared based on the proposed Site Option 1 at Brow Top and Adjacent Land to determine the financial implications on the level of potential income, costs and the projected number of users that could arise from the planned new facility. This section of the report highlights the assumptions used in the model and provides a commentary in relation to calculation of the income and cost items.
7.2 As part of the development of the business plan, we have taken into account the financial performance of the existing site, feedback from the Trust and current pricing.
7.3 It should be noted that based upon the views of the current operator, if the business plan was prepared for the Moorclose site, income is likely to be reduced by some 10% to 15%.
General assumptions
7.4 The following assumptions have been used in the development of the operational business plan:
the income and expenditure modelling is based upon an accommodation schedule set out in set out in Section 5 above,
we have not included any building or equipment lifecycle costs for the new building within the business plan but these are accounted for separately within the Core Fund,
no provision is made for the irrecoverable VAT which we understand will need to be reviewed by the Trust as part of its group accounts,
no central costs or profit have been allocated to the business plan as these are already accounted for within the management fee.
Economic Assumptions
7.5 The following economic assumptions have been used for each of the options.
the price base used is December 2012 (to reflect current fees and charges),
no general inflation has been included in the model,
no cash flow interest has been included in the model,
no debt financing is included in the business plan model,
VAT on operational purchases is assumed at 20%,
VAT recovery rate by the Trust is estimated 100% for this site, although an adjustment has been made in central costs which falls outside the business plan.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 55
Business Plan
7.6 A summary of the projected profit and loss is shown overleaf and has been extracted from the Business Plan model.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 56
Figure 7.1 – Summary of Profit and Loss Account
Allerdale Borough Council New Workington Leisure Centre FINANCIAL SUMMARY YEARS 12345 INCOME
Dry side 74,944 79,108 83,272 83,272 83,272 Squash Courts 8,000 8,400 8,820 8,820 8,820 Health Suite 12,500 13,750 15,125 15,125 15,125 Health and Fitness 354,708 382,468 401,362 410,227 410,227 Swimming 225,029 236,873 248,716 248,716 248,716 STP 61,352 61,352 61,352 61,352 61,352 Rentals 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Café and Retail 97,839 103,508 108,027 109,182 109,182
TOTAL INCOME 854,373 905,458 946,675 956,694 956,694
YEARS 12345 EXPENDITURE
Staffing Costs Salaries and Wages 568,108 568,108 568,108 568,108 568,108
Premises Utilities 158,545 158,545 158,545 158,545 158,545 Repairs and Maintenance 40,842 40,842 40,842 68,070 68,070 Grounds Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 Cleaning 7,009 7,009 7,009 7,009 7,009 National Non-Domestic Rates 0 0 0 0 0 Life-Cycle Costs 00000 Total 206,395 206,395 206,395 233,623 233,623
Advertising & Marketing 15,000 0 0 0 0
Administration Insurances 00000 Printing, Postage and Stationery 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 IT (telephones / software / licences / website) 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Admin and Finance 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Other supplies and sundry items 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500
Cost of Sales Café and Retail 44,028 46,578 48,612 49,132 49,132
Central Costs, Overheads and Profit Central Costs 0 0 0 0 0 Irrecoverable VAT 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency / Profit 0 0 0 0 0 Total 00000
Total Expenditure 862,031 849,581 851,615 879,363 879,363
NET OPERATING COST/(SURPLUS) 7,657 (55,877) (95,059) (77,331) (77,331)
*assumes town centre site, and at Moorclose potential income lost of 10% would resulted in a net operating cost rather than projected surplus.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 57
Income projections
7.7 It can be seen that the business plan income grows from £854,000 in Year 1 to £956,000 by Year 4. This compares to the current income generated at the site of £610,000 per annum.
Health and Fitness
7.8 The table below sets out the projected level of income from the health and fitness element of the site. Current income from fitness appears to be circa £257,000 in 2011-12 which is based upon circa 1,150 members giving a membership yield of circa £19 per member. We believe that the new facility will generate increased income from Year 1 which is driven by strong marketing and local interest and our discussions with the Trust.
Table 7.1 – Summary of health and fitness income
All £ YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
Memberships 322,370.96 350,130.26 369,024.74 377,889.56 377,889.56
Casual Gym Users 11,637.50 11,637.50 11,637.50 11,637.50 11,637.50
Fitness Class Users 20,700.00 20,700.00 20,700.00 20,700.00 20,700.00
TOTAL 354,708.46 382,467.76 401,362.24 410,227.06 410,227.06
7.9 We have assumed that there will be 75 fitness stations with 20 members per station which is similar to the current position. As a result we believe that, due to the inaccuracy of the latent demand report, there will be a 25% increase in demand resulting in circa 1,450 members compared to the current 1,150 members.
7.10 We have sought to apply current pricing and current membership types into the financial model, and have also included where appropriate administration fees.
7.11 As a measure of total fitness income per station the Trust generates circa £5,140 and under this business plan is rises marginally to £5,467 per station which is low compared to benchmark but this reflects the price point used.
7.12 In terms of casual gym usage, we have assumed 65 users per week which generates circa 3,250 visits per annum (currently 3,300) and £11,600 (currently £11,000) of income in all years.
7.13 The facility will have two dance studios. We have assumed a studio programme of 60 classes per week including spinning classes of which on average they will be 80% full at peak times and 50% full on non-peak hours. We anticipate that the majority of users (80%) will be members and as such the facility will be included in their monthly membership and therefore only 10% will be casual users. We estimate that income from classes will be circa £21,000 per annum which is similar from the level of casual pay and play usage and income currently generated.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 58
7.14 The assumptions used in determining the levels of income associated with memberships and casual gym are shown below:
there is an admin joining fees of £16.00,
80% of all inclusive members will be single users and 20% will be couples,
the monthly attrition rate is 5% marginally above industry standards,
we have assumed an average of 19 members per station,
existing memberships are circa 1,150, and
income profile for net sales after attrition is shown as 90% in Year 1, 95% in Year 2, 100% in Year 3, 4 and 5 onwards.
Sports Hall
7.15 The facility will have a four court sports hall. The current facility generates circa £78,000 per annum from 4 courts, the equivalent to circa £19,500 per court which is at the top end of our operational benchmark database.
7.16 We have prepared an outline programme for the sports hall, recognising we have not duplicated or reflected the nuances of the current programme or facility, but our model generates circa £83,000 which is £20,500 per court and reflects the likely interest in use from a new facility.
Swimming
7.17 The new swimming facility will include only one pool which will be an 8 lane 25m pool with a moving floor as well as a learner pool (13m x 7m). This will replace the existing 6 lane 25m pool and learner pool and will provide an additional circa 100m2.
7.18 Current income from the key activities are as follows:
Casual swimming - £73,000
Schools and Club Hire - £62,000
Swimming Lessons - £75,000
Total Income - £210,000 or circa £500 per m2
7.19 We have prepared an outline pool programme for the new facilities, using the current pricing and have estimated that income in a mature year will be circa £249,000 (the equivalent to £585 per m2). This represents an increase in income of circa 20% which is reasonable for a new leisure facility. Providing two pools provides more flexibility and could increase the income percentage to a marginally higher figure.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 59
Table 7.2 Summary of Swimming Income
All £ YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Casual Swimming 93,129 98,031 102,932 102,932 102,932
Swimming Lessons 82,461 86,801 91,141 91,141 91,141
Pool Hire 49,439 52,041 54,643 54,643 54,643
TOTAL 225,029 236,873 248,716 248,716 248,716
7.20 In Year 1 we have assumed income at £225,000 rising to £249,000 by Year 3, the equivalent to £585 per m2 which is below the our national average benchmark of circa £824 per m2. Some facilities that are busy with strong swimming lessons and club use can leverage circa £1,000+ per m2. We have assumed an increase in Year 1 from the current financial performance of circa 7%.
Health Suite
7.21 We have also included a sauna and steam room which is accessible from the pool hall. It may be possible to generate pay and play income from this facility which can range between £10,000 to circa £20,000 per annum plus. At this time we have assumed income of £15,000 can be generated which the average income is from pay and play use for similar activities. The facility will require an access code.
3G Pitch
7.22 This report includes the income for a multi-sport 3G pitch (154m x 80m maximum) and we have calculated income to be circa £61,352 (net income of £45,000). We have estimated the facility will receive circa 29,400 users a year.
7.23 This income figure may be prudent and there will be a potential to increase the income in the future if the 6-a-side league football is more popular than the current level of demand suggests. This would allow more leagues that can be run on additional evenings. The facility will also be the only 3G facility in Workington, which may allow for increased users as well as attracting users from other nearby facilities.
Climbing Wall
7.24 A small local climbing facility has been included in the proposed plans within a flexible space. The capital costs and the net revenue from the facility will be undertaken and kept by the Trust outside of the management fee. This will provide income of circa £20,000 per annum for the new facility.
Squash
7.25 There is currently 3 usable squash courts in the existing facility generating income of circa £8,600 from circa 7,000 users, an average of 2.40 per court/session (£8,600/(7,000 x 50%) which appears low.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 60
7.26 However, we have taken a prudent approach to income generation and assumed similar levels of income from the existing users but from only using two courts. There is a marginal risk that some of the peak time usage will need to be transferred to weekends and off peak times given that demand at peak squash time is between 5.40pm and 9pm.
Catering
7.27 From discussions with the Trust, they only operate vending at the current site which generates total income of £43,000 and net income after cost of goods sold of £14,000 gross profit from an estimated 226,000 visits per annum. This equates to £0.19 p per visit which is an average level of catering income per visit.
7.28 They have suggested that under their proposals a café and bar would work especially with the large array of facilities available at the proposed new facility.
7.29 The business plan includes estimated visits per annum of 336,000 in a mature year with 301,000 in Year 1. We have applied a benchmark rate of £0.34p per visit generating income net of VAT of £95,000 per annum with cost of goods sold at 45% leaving £52,000 of gross profit. We have also included in staffing an additional FTE to cover additional catering support which has a cost of £37,000 per annum (including on costs) and therefore the catering operation will make a marginal surplus of £15,000 or circa 16% net margin.
7.30 This assumes that a café/bar will be provided along the lines of a costa coffee selling pre- packaged food and coffee. It will be located at reception and be serviced by the additional reception and catering staff. This approach is similar to the private sector club but we think that a café is important in the overall service offer provided by a facility. Being more optimistic a spend per visit of £0.50p plus is more likely, generating an additional £30,000 gross profit, but we have taken a prudent view on income.
Retail
7.31 Current income from retail averages circa £0.05p per visit or £10,653 per annum. We have assumed that this level of spend per visit will be maintained and with the increase in users will generate a total income after VAT of circa £14,000 per annum, an increase of circa £3,000 from current income.
Analysis of costs
7.32 We have analysed the overall costs for this site under the following headings:
salaries and wages,
premises costs,
advertising and marketing,
administration,
cost of sales, and
central costs and VAT
7.33 The next section provides further details of the costs and assumptions used in developing the operating costs.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 61
Salaries and wages
7.34 The current cost of staffing appears to be circa £444,000 per annum in 2011-12 and we have sought to reconcile this cost with the number of staff from the information provided on staffing levels etc. by the Trust and do not quite agree due to the likelihood of timing differences between the data (2011/12 actual versus 2012/13 salaries).
7.35 We have included in the report staffing costs at £568,000 including coaches and instructor costs in Year 1. This represents an increase from the 2011/12 actual of £124,000 per annum and the increase is based upon:
Increase in reception staff – there are currently 4.3 FTE but we have increased this to 4.4 FTE ensuring that there are always two members of staff on at peak times and one at all other times over the circa 108 hour opening times. The marginal cost of this investment is £4,000 per annum.
Increase in lifeguards to 8.4FTE due to the increase in pool water by circa 100m2.
Gym manager with an additional cost including on costs totalling £25,000 per annum
Increase in catering staff – given that we wish to provide a catering service, we have included an additional person on at all times to support the reception staff, especially at peak times. This amounts to an additional £37,000 per annum.
Provision for class instructors, casual staff and overtime totalling £44,000 per annum.
7.36 The salaries and wages figures include employer on costs covering national insurance and pension contributions.
7.37 The benchmark cost of staffing compared to income is normally between 55% and 65% and the business plan model indicates that the staffing costs represent 59.4% of income, which is within the employee cost benchmark. The current cost as a percentage of income is 73% which may suggest that income is below benchmark rather than costs are too high given the level of staff and the opening hours.
7.38 We have excluded the cost of maintenance staff which we understand will be treated within the central costs by the Trust.
Premises costs
7.39 The main element of the premises costs is normally national non domestic rates, utilities, maintenance and building & equipment lifecycle fund contributions. We have not been provided by a Gross Internal Floor Area (GIFA) for the site but have estimated that this will be circa 4,673m2 given the facility mix.
7.40 The total premises costs for the new facilities in Year 3 are projected at £206,000 per annum which compares to the current £165,000 per annum in 2011/12 a difference of £41,000 per year.
7.41 We have made the following assumptions when determining the annual premises costs using a gross internal floor area of 4,673m2:
utilities – the Trust has indicated a current cost per m2 of £14.00 which is very low compared to other facilities, especially given its age and layout. Our database suggests
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 62
the average utility cost is currently £25 excluding water. However, we have to recognise that the current cost is significantly lower than our data, but we have taken a prudent approach and applied £25 per m2 giving an annual cost net of VAT of £117,000. We have also added an additional circa £4,000 for the STP floodlight utilities, combining to an annual cost of £121,000 which is £40,000 higher than the current cost in 2011/12 of £81,000.
water and sewerage - (£8.00 per m2) and totals £37,000 per annum which is similar to the current cost and is reasonable given the amount of pool water and facilities,
repairs and maintenance – we have applied a standard rate of £12 per m2 for the building which totals £56,000 per annum for a full year (recognising the service contracts are included and provision for reactive repairs). We have also added an addition £12,000 for the STP maintenance, totalling £68,000 and this compares to £40,000 spent in 2011/12 from the profit and loss account plus additional expenditure from the Core Fund spent on the repairs, replacement and maintenance of equipment and the building. We have assumed in the first three years only the service contract PPM element will be required which we estimate at 60% of the full mature year cost (circa £41,000 per annum).
cleaning materials (£1.50 per m2), totals £7,000 including materials etc. Cleaners are included under employee costs.
Advertising and marketing
7.42 We have included £15,000 in Year 1 for advertising and marketing. An annual provision for advertising and marketing initiatives should equal 3% of income although we note that this is a central charge and therefore not included in the profit and loss account.
Administration
7.43 We have included within administration; insurances, printing, IT and telephone costs, chemicals and other supplies and services, including banking costs and licensing at the same level that is included in the outturn for 2011/12 at £28,500, although we note from the Trust that some of these costs are treated as central costs and already included in the management fee.
Cost of sales
7.44 The cost of sales covers the cost of purchasing goods for resale. We have used 45% of sales income as a base from which to determine the cost of sales relating to catering and retail income, which is the industry benchmark. In Year 3, the cost of sales has been calculated at circa £49,000 against the catering and retail income of £108,000.
Value Added Tax (VAT)
7.45 A Charitable Trust will normally be able to satisfy the conditions for VAT exemption of all its sports and recreational services. This will provide a cash benefit in terms of the VAT charged to users not having to be passed over to HMRC.
7.46 The rate of non-recoverable VAT is a cost to the business and will be dependent upon the operator’s group recovery rate. We have not included any provision at this stage for this additional cost, until the Trust has established its overall VAT recovery rate for bid purposes. This will need to be adjusted from the Table 6.4 below, although we think that it is not
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 63
likely to increase the non-recoverable VAT given the value of the expenditure in the profit and loss account that is taxable.
Profit and Overheads
7.47 No provision has been made for the recovery of central costs or profit within the business plan model above.
Net Savings from Investment
7.48 The table below sets out details of the current costs and the projected costs under the new facility.
Table 7.3 Summary of Savings from Investment
All £ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 New Facility Operating Cost / (Surplus) 7,657 - 55,877 - 95,059 - 77,331 - 77,331 Site Share of Management Fee by Trust 215,428 215,428 215,428 215,428 215,428 New Facility Lifecycle Cost 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 Tota Running Cost of New Facility 347,085 283,551 244,369 262,097 262,097
Current Centre Operating Cost / (Surplus) 89,057 89,057 89,057 89,057 89,057 Current share of CLL Corporate Cost 259,168 259,168 259,168 259,168 259,168 Curent cost from Core Fund 81,500 81,500 81,500 81,500 81,500 Less Demand on Core Fund - 81,500 - 71,500 - 61,500 - 41,500 - Total Running Cost of Current Facility 348,225 358,225 368,225 388,225 429,725
Projected Saving 1,140 74,674 123,856 126,128 167,628
7.49 It can be seen that the facility is projected to operate at a deficit at Year 1 of £7,657 which is significantly better than the current cost and improves over the first 5 years. We have also included the share of the Trusts central costs that are allocated to the Workington Leisure Centre. These have been adjusted to reflect some costs that are currently included in the central costs but are also included in the new facility operating costs.
7.50 The new facility requires a provision for building and equipment lifecycle of £124,000 to cover the replacement of operator fixture, fittings and equipment over the next 10 years and in terms of building lifecycle contributions for the new facility at this stage are based upon 10% of the capital cost divided by 25 years which would equate to an annual requirement for circa £36,000 per annum plus £18,000 for the 3G STP refresh of the carpet in 10 years’ time.
7.51 As a result, it can be seen that the net cost of the new facility in Year 1, taking into account the direct operating costs, the central costs and new lifecycle costs is £347,000 reducing to £262,000 by Year 5.
7.52 In terms of comparing these net costs with the current operating position, the current cost of the facility is £348,000 (which excludes costs met from the Core Fund).
It can be seen that the annual contribution for the current Workington facility from the Core Fund is £81,500 per annum (indexed) in the current year. In the first four years of the new facility as the contract comes to a close in 2019, the level of depreciation falls allowing some of the existing unused Core Fund to become available to finance part of the new lifecycle costs of the new facility.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 64
8. Procurement Strategy
8.1 The purpose of this section is to identify the procurement routes and implications for the construction of the new facility, and the potential operational management arrangements. This section has focused on the following key procurement methodologies:
Traditional approach where the Council controls the design and enters into a building contract
Design and build contract (D&B) including stage 1 and 2 methods
A Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) contract
Design competition, prior to the construction procurement
Design and Build contract using a framework agreement (e.g. OGC, SCAPE)
Key Issues impacting on Procurement Strategy
8.2 The Council has a number of key criteria to consider when assessing the most suitable procurement strategy, which will influence their procurement choice. The criteria for consideration:
Attitude to risk
Affordability
Control over design
Timescale
Market Interest
Attitude to Risk
8.3 The Council has to consider what level of risk exposure they are willing to manage themselves on the project as this will determine the level of financial and time impact. This will determine what level of risk transfer the Council wants to place on the construction, which will be reflected in the construction costs.
8.4 There are a number of risks involved in the procurement of a new building including design, late changes to the Employer Requirements, planning, construction, site risks (incl. ground conditions and services) and post construction risks including defects, operational risks, building lifecycle costs replacement to name but a few.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 65
8.5 Risks that cannot be quantified will add a risk premium to the overall costs and attractiveness of the project in the market. There are a number of different mitigation strategies to reduce or avoid risk exposure including for example:
Either controlling or transferring the design and construction risks to a third party
Collaboration of the design with the long term facility operations to avoid interface issues between the design and build team and the leisure operator
Understanding of existing site conditions; through early examination of the land for contamination, geotechnical and utility surveys to identify potential risks and to assess site suitability
Site ownership, right of ways and outline planning approvals
Control over design
8.6 It is our experience that many Council clients control the design to ensure that their requirements are delivered and reflects their aspirations. Procurement methodologies provide clients with the control of the scheme development to detailed design (RIBA Stage D). However, ‘designing by committee’ can consume project time and this negotiation can prove to be difficult between both internal and external stakeholders in considering commercial viability from their own prospective.
8.7 Where an operator has control over the design and delivering to the Council’s output specification requirements, this enables greater transfer of design risk and the future operating risk, compared to a position where the Council retains this risk due to their leadership of the design process.
8.8 An alternative approach for the Council is to conduct a design competition where it sets its business requirements and architects submit a proposed design for the facility. This method could be either; Architects only where the Council would procure the construction company or a Construction company coming forward with a design team, normally under a construction framework agreement (examples include OGC, SCAPE etc).
Timescale
8.9 These procurement timescales vary and are dependent on whether the procurement stages are consecutive (e.g. detailed design to be finalised prior to procurement of the construction contract) or allow the commencement of some stages simultaneously (planning and design development). The Design and Build process is normally the quickest procurement method; due to the simultaneously commencement of these activities; for example planning, main contractor procurement and design development.
Affordability
8.10 The project cost is linked to the risks their management, material costs, labour costs and the associated time scales to undertake both the design and construction of the new facility.
8.11 There is a balance between risk mitigation, costs and timescales on all of these procurement methods, in which some options will mitigate risks better than others.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 66
With time, the extended procurement will result in additional inflationary costs, however these may be offset partially or in full, by reducing the risks associated with the design and construction. An example of this would be where the Council designs the full scheme and at the end of the design process procures a building contractor. This would take longer than a design and build contract, where the later elements of detailed design and initial construction are carried out simultaneously (for example the main contractor is on site as the production drawings are being finalised.)
Market Interest
8.12 Although no market testing has been undertaken, it is likely that the Council will receive positive interest from both construction companies and leisure operators (if required) due to the recession period, therefore providing a sufficient competitive market. From our experience there are normally concerns from Operators under the DBOM Contract about planning risk and when they would submit planning applications which is normally when they are appointed as Preferred Bidder. The approach where the Council invites a main contractor to develop a design and calculate a Gross Maximum Payment (GMP) price may be less attractive as it has high bidding costs (design to Stage C/D) for the contractor and more risky in terms of winning and recouping their costs, however using framework agreements can reduce the risk exposure for the contractor from this approach.
Impact on Future Procurement Options
8.13 Details on how each of these issues influences the different procurement options are set out later in this section.
Background to EU Procurement Regulations
8.14 There is a requirement that the Council should adhere to the EU Public Procurement Directives, which have been adopted by the UK government and all public bodies in the form of The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and 2009. The purpose of the EU Directives is to ensure the free movement of goods and services, to open up competition for public contracts and ensure transparency due to the large amount spent by public bodies.
8.15 There are three main EU procurement routes that may be used to secure public works and services contracts (valued over specified financial thresholds) where they fall over the current limits:
Works - £4.348 million (as at January 2012)
Services - £173,934 per annum (as at January 2012)
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 67
8.16 Where works or services fall under the thresholds, there remains a need for openness and transparency by a local authority, but there is no requirement to follow the procurement routes below. In terms of services, there is also an exemption for a number of sectors including leisure, and these currently fall under Part B and also do not have to follow the procedures below.
Open procedure
8.17 The open procedure is suitable where the contract is straight forward with limited requirement for specific skills / technical capacity and where there are a limited number of potential suppliers.
8.18 It allows for a combined pre-qualification and tender assessment and can be a quicker procurement route than the restricted procedure. The councils would send its invitation to tender including its contract documents to all respondents expressing an interest so if there is likely to be a high number of bidders this route may be inappropriate.
8.19 Tenders can be clarified following receipt by the councils but changes to the tender and any negotiation with the bidder are not allowed. This is not normally used to select a design and build team or a leisure operator.
8.20 Based upon our understanding of the Councils requirements we believe that the Council will wish to pre-qualify its potential bidders to ensure that they have the technical ability and financial standing, the Open Tender route is not applicable and is not considered any further.
Restricted procedure
8.21 Under the restricted procedure, all interested parties can submit an expression of interest, but only those invited by the Council following a pre-qualification stage may submit a tender. A minimum of five contractors must be invited to tender (provided that there are five suitably qualified candidates).
8.22 As with the open procedure, negotiation with bidders is not permitted; therefore, this process should only be used where the Council is able to specify their requirements, particularly as the procedure requires that the contract documents are issued with the invitation to tender. In relation to the market, this would mean being able to specify areas such as scope of services, risk sharing, payment terms, monitoring requirements etc. The inability to engage in any negotiations with bidders means that this route is not often recommended where capital investment or significant capital works are proposed.
8.23 Recent procurement guidance issued by central government has focused on the opportunity to utilise ‘soft market testing’ procedures in advance of any formal OJEU process in order to gain early market feedback to inform the tender documents. However, this depends on the willingness of bidders to engage in the process and is unlikely to result in specific feedback on local issues due to the need for primary research by bidders prior to any tender opportunity.
Competitive dialogue procedure
8.24 The competitive dialogue procedure allows the input of contractors/operators during the tender process to shape the solution for the Council. This procedure is only
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 68
available for ‘particularly complex contracts’ where the Council does not consider that the service / works requirements can be sufficiently specified in advance.
8.25 For a contract to be ‘particularly complex’ the Council must not be able, objectively, to define the technical means capable of satisfying its needs, or to identify in advance the legal or financial make-up of a project.
8.26 Following submission of an expression of interest and successful pre-qualification, the Council must invite at least three contractors to participate in the dialogue (provided there are sufficient pre-qualified candidates). During the dialogue phase the Council will engage with bidders individually to develop solutions to meet its needs and may reduce the number of bidders during this phase.
8.27 When an appropriate solution has been identified, the dialogue phase must be concluded and final tenders (based on bidders’ individual solutions) invited. After tender submission, the extent of permitted clarification are limited, although in practice several issues can only be addressed post-tender (e.g. detailed planning applications).
8.28 The minimum timescale for submission of expressions of interest is 30 days (assuming an electronic OJEU advert). All other timescales must be reasonable and are at the Council’s discretion. In practice, the length of a competitive dialogue procedure can range from 12-18 months and in certain cases can take longer as it is dependent upon the amount of dialogue required in order to achieve the best solution for the Council.
Use of Frameworks
8.29 The use of a framework agreement (for example OGC, SCAPE and IESE) is a useful process to reduce the procurement timescale (circa 2 – 3 months) and avoid the need for a bespoke procurement and pre-qualification process as this will have already been undertaken when the framework was let originally following OJEU protocols.
8.30 The framework agreements relate to the procurement of professional teams and main building contractors. Each framework may be different in terms of the information provided by bidders, some may have agreed a pre-set schedule of rates, some may be fixed profit and overheads etc.
8.31 The use of frameworks does not avoid the need to comply with the Public Procurement Regulations but has been well used in relation to design and build projects in particular. There are no frameworks currently available which include leisure Operators.
Planned Changes to the Regulations
8.32 The planned date for the adoption of the new Public Sector Procurement Directive is early 2013 with implementation in member states within 24 months of the date of adoption.
8.33 One of the key features is the proposed abolition of the Part A and Part B services distinction and therefore it looked as though leisure services would be subject to the full procurement regulations including the requirement to advertise in the OJEU and follow one of the standard procurement procedures.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 69
8.34 A summary note was issued in October 2012 stating that services such as leisure will no longer be classed as a Part B Service but will instead be required to follow a new regime.
8.35 The details are still being finalised however this essentially means that all contracts for services listed in an a particular Annex to the Directive (which includes leisure) above 500,000 Euros will be required to advertise using an OJEU contract notice or Prior Information Notice, comply with national procurement rules to ensure transparency and equal treatment and publish a contract award notice. If the contract for services is below 500,000 Euros then the procuring authority’s own internal rules just need to be followed and the contract does not have to be advertised via OJEU.
8.36 This should not impact on the construction of leisure services which will continue to be dealt with as Works Contracts and will be subject to the Public Procurement Regulations where they exceed the current financial threshold of £4.3 million.
Procurement Options for Construction
8.37 There are a number of different types of contracts for the procurement of construction projects, and variations thereof, however we have defined the primary options as follows:
Traditional Building Contract
Design and Build Contract (1 Stage)
Design and Build Contract (2 Stage)
Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) Contract
Framework Agreements
Design Competition
8.38 Below provides a summary of the primary options defined above; together with the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. The definition of the RIBA Design Stages is set out in Appendix D to this report.
Traditional Build Contract
8.39 In a traditional design and build construction project, the Council will enter the contracts with a design professional (typically an architect) to design the project. The architect may employ other "sub-design consultants" such as engineers to assist in the development of the design stages. When the design is complete and approved by the Council, tender documentation is prepared by the design professional and bids are solicited from building contractors. The Council then enters into a separate contract with a building contractor for a fixed price to construct the project. This process therefore requires two EU compliant procurements – firstly for the design team and secondly for the construction team.
8.40 There may be practical risks around the build-ability of the design and the Council will need to input a high level of resources into the design process. With the former, there may be issues that the design is not the most efficient to construct. This can be overcome by engaging a contractor early to provide input into the build-ability of the
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 70
design; before the design is “completed” by the relevant design consultants. However, this requires early selection of a contractor before an agreed fixed price for the construction (normally using a two stage process).
8.41 Under this process the Council retains responsibility for any delay in providing design information from its professional consultants to the building contractor. Even where the designs are “complete” and before the engagement of a contractor there is usually the need for refining the detailing of design and approval of elements (particularly mechanical and electrical installations) from specialist contractors. This can be exploited by a Contractor who has bid low to win the job as a way of claiming additional costs.
8.42 Using this approach allows the Council to develop the design and select its own Operator. The disadvantages include the costs / resource implications of two procurements, timescales, impact on the VAT recovery on the Council’s special exemption de-minimus limit and design risk. There is no requirement for the Council to appoint a separate Employers Agent; as the Council’s design team will manage the whole process and monitor the construction phase.
Table 8.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Traditional Build Contract
Advantages of the Traditional Build Disadvantages of the Traditional Build Contract Contract
control over design process no one person is responsible for direct reporting of design the design and construction team to the Council to together ensure quality control design needs to be developed as Council achieves the design it fully as possible before requires tendering minimum design changes post time/cost more likely to contractor appointment escalate as design is finalised by lower financial risk to the the Council Council as price based upon procurement process is lengthy completed drawings and as the design development and detailed specification, etc. tender process is sequential The Council will know the hard to build relationship with cost before the construction the Contractor as they are commences appointed towards the end of no built in contractor risk the procurement process premium a lack of early contractor and supply chain involvement limited opportunity for contractor innovation due to engagement at a late stage possible reluctance on the part of the designers to accept alternative proposals on designs the separation of the contractor from the design can mean missed opportunities for contractor or specialist contractor to input
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 71
Advantages of the Traditional Build Disadvantages of the Traditional Build Contract Contract
no direct Operator involvement in the process Planning risk is retained by the Council
8.43 Under this type of procurement, a separate exercise is still required to procure a leisure Operator.
Design and Build Contracts
8.44 In a design and build contract, the Council enter into a single contract with a contractor who takes ultimate responsibility for both the design and construction of the project. In the first instance, the Council will employ a professional team to develop the design and Employer Requirements to a specific design stage and then tender for a contractor to undertake the works. Under this method of procurement, there is the opportunity to use a one or two stage tender process.
One Stage 8.45 A one stage process is where the Contractor provides a price based upon the Employers Requirements (normally RIBA Stage D/E) which is based upon the cost of construction, profit and preliminary costs.
Two Stage 8.46 The two stage process firstly selects bidders based upon their preliminary costs and profit (based upon RIBA Stage C/D) and the best price bids are taken to a second stage where they are asked to price for the construction element based upon a further developed design (Stage E) which has their input on build-ability etc. The latter option provides more cost certainty and is normally quicker to procure.
8.47 Following the appointment of the Contractor, the professional team may be novated across to the contractor from the Council or the contractor may employ their own architects and engineers. Either way, the design is transferred to the Contractor from the Council. The Council may retain the design team to become their Employers Agent or representatives to evaluate, negotiate and value the Contractors proposals during the design development and construction phases.
8.48 Design and build contracts provide single-point responsibility for the Council. If the Council has a problem with the facility, they need only call the Contractor, alleviating any need to liaise or, where there are serious issues sue both architect and contractor individually.
8.49 The design-build process also increases the likelihood that the building will be constructed within the Councils budget. Contractors often can provide better prices and information regarding construction methodologies than architects; however this is dependent upon what design information is provided to the bidders. The Contractor is able to conduct value engineering and constructability analysis from the moment they are engaged in the process which can reduce the cost of the project.
8.50 Design and build projects are often completed sooner than traditional build only projects and DBOM contracts. A Contractor can start construction before the final design is completed and can provide early project scheduling, and can order long-lead
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 72
time items before the design is completed (steel fabrication etc). In the traditional build only contracts, the design generally must be completed before bids are let.
8.51 In a design-build contract, the Council cannot rely on the architect to act as his or her representative during the construction process (if novation is used) and it will need to retain the services of a construction project manager.
8.52 The use of the design and build contract, provides the Council with the opportunity to select their own leisure operator to manage the facilities. It also enables the Council to transfer the design and construction risk to the building contractor (post novation).
8.53 The disadvantage is that it does not provide an integrated solution (no Operator to inform the design), the capital cost of the facility may impact on the Council’s VAT position and there are the risks associated with the future operation of the facilities.
8.54 Most of these contracts are procured through competitive dialogue.
Table 8.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of the D&B Contract
Advantages of the D&B Contract Disadvantages of the D&B Contract
early involvement of the initial price may be higher contractor as the contractor may build improved cost certainty into his price a 'risk premium single source responsibility (can be mitigated by two most effective in managing stage process) risks post-contract variations by the conflicts between design and Council can be more expensive construction are design the Council has less control contractor’s responsibility and influence over design contractor is simultaneously matters estimating construction costs if the Council does not have a during design firm and robust set of client's decision to proceed with requirements it may be given project is made with firm a design that does not meet knowledge of the final cost and its aspirations scope of work contractor may be driven by design and construction works price rather than by design as a team (post novation) standards design and construction can be there is the potential of dual overlapped resulting in time loyalties of a novated savings and cost savings architect materials and long lead items quality can be an issue can be procured early on in the because of the lack of control process that the client has over the earlier occupancy of architect (can be mitigated by completed facility two stage process) Council may need to employ its own Employers Agent at an additional cost the Operator is not normally directly involved in the development of the project
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 73
Advantages of the D&B Contract Disadvantages of the D&B Contract
possible complex legal issues over novation of design team planning risk is with the Council
8.55 Under this option the leisure Operator would still need to be appointed under a separate procurement exercise.
Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) Contract
8.56 This approach involves the Council procuring a Consortium (Design, Building Contractor and Operator) that will take the lead and take on the risk in the design, construction and the operation of the new leisure centre. This is similar to the PFI/PPP arrangements introduced in the 1990’s; however the funding is provided by the Council.
8.57 It is a so called “one stop shop” where the Council issues an output specification covering the ‘employers requirements’ standards of construction, the facility requirements (pool, gym etc.) and service requirements (e.g. opening hours, programming, cleaning, quality accreditation, etc.).
8.58 Consortia bid for the contract, which is normally a long term contract of 15 plus years, and between them, deliver an optimum solution (in terms of design, construction and operation) balancing capital costs and revenue costs. The procurement route used is typically competitive dialogue in order to maximise innovation and enable the Council to work with the consortia to develop the best solution in the context of a whole life costing approach.
8.59 These types of contracts can take between 12 – 24 months to procure, following which the selected consortium will obtain planning and commence construction of the new facility.
Table 8.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of the DBOM Contract
Advantages of the DBOM Contract Disadvantages of the DBOM Contract
one stop shop approach the Council will need to output specification leaving appoint a full monitoring & the bidders to sort out the compliance team optimum solution could result in higher initial the final operational & capital capital costs, should the cost will be known before any operator seek to reduce the work is started lifecycle and operating costs consortia will provide their over the operational period by optimum facility mix balancing way of upfront investment capital costs and operating (whole life costing) – although costs this is mitigated by the long- fixed sum agreed for the new term operational efficiency facility including fixtures, the Council have limited fittings & equipment (FF&E) on control over the design or signing contract layout of the facility, other
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 74
Advantages of the DBOM Contract Disadvantages of the DBOM Contract
Operator is able to input into than via their specification design, finishes and life cycle and planning / building costs control requirements should result in optimum the Council’s flexibility to whole-life costing, balancing appoint its preferred partners capital and operational / is more limited – for example, lifecycle costs the preferred constructor and consortia develop scheme operator may be in different linked to the Council output consortia, thus limiting the specification Council’s ability to achieve its transfer of most of the optimum partnership solution operation and construction requiring consortia bids may risk, once contract agreed exclude a number of trust Operators, who do not have formal partnerships with construction partners. Although there have recently been more trust operators entering this market, typically there are less leisure operator bidders for a DBOM contract than a management contract
Use of Frameworks
8.60 There is a number of construction frameworks used across the UK and the advantages of using these are that a pre-qualification process has already been undertaken following the Public Procurement Regulations. The framework will have a selected list of main contractors from which the Council may choose a number of these to tender for their Works Contract.
8.61 Under these frameworks, tenders may have not just pre-qualified but have set out their agreement to professional fees, preliminary cost percentages and profit percentages for different value contracts or where the Council seeks a design to Stage C/D and a Gross Maximum Price from the main Contractor who will have employed the design team, although the latter is not as popular due to the high bidding costs and working at risk.
8.62 Examples of some of these frameworks for construction or professional services are shown below, however there are many more to select from.
Improvement and Efficiency in South East (IESE) – the regional framework consists of 8 construction contractors which have been preselected. We understand that the works are limited to £4.5 billion. The four year framework led by Hampshire County Council can be accessed by local authorities across the South East and London. Over 30 authorities are currently signed up to use the framework which is open to all public service bodies.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 75
SCAPE - Scape is owned by six local authorities (and is a local authority controlled company) and is a national OJEU compliant construction framework that every public organisation can use. Since Scape has been through the OJEU process the projects procured do not need to be OJEU tendered. It covers residential buildings, education, emergency services, health, offices and leisure. There are a number of frameworks under SCAPE for the different types and values of services. There is a cost of using this framework which is payable to SCAPE for use of their service.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce) – there are a number of different framework agreements in place covering construction, professional services, property and others. In 2009, a four year framework agreement was made Project Management & Full Design Team Services of which there are twelve companies to select from and which covers all project management and design services, including project and programme management; architecture (including landscape & master planning); building services engineering (M&E); building surveying; CDM; civil engineering; QS; structural engineering; Employers Agent (D&B); and supervisor (NEC 3) services.
Table 8.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Framework Agreement
Advantages of the Framework Disadvantages of the Framework Agreement Agreement
No prequalification process; the Council will need to saving time in procurement appoint a full monitoring & stage, so projects are compliance team delivered quicker after new suppliers to the market identifying the need may not be on the framework Time savings reduce expose to New solutions (e.g. green inflation risk energy/construction Reduced resources and costs in methods/materials) may not undertaking the Pre- be reflected in the framework Qualification stage agreement Suppliers who have tendered Additional costs for using the may reduce their fees and services provided rates to access the larger market through the framework
Design Competition
8.63 Although not a procurement route for construction in itself, it provides an alternative in how to either appoint a design team or select a design concept. A set of tender documents are produced and design teams are given the opportunity of presenting their concept or to deliver an actual design to say Stage C (Outline Design) with their fee rates for evaluation by the Council.
8.64 Normally, the Council will partially or fully reimburse the bidders who are not successful up to an agreed limited stated in the procurement documents to reduce the bidder’s exposure and to attract interest. The Council will need to consider the additional cost of employing a project manager or professional to assist with the evaluation of the designs. RIBA do provide this service at a cost. Once the design team
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 76
are appointed, they start work at RIBA Stage A/B working closely with the Council team.
8.65 The advantage of this approach; although it can be time consuming if using the design competition to Stage C, it provides the opportunity for the Council to work with the bidder and to understand their thinking and this can be better than the standard tender and evaluation of a design team. Using the design concept approach only, it enables the Council to see the flare and imagination of the design team prior to an appointment.
8.66 The disadvantage of this approach; can be that where the Council is using the Stage C approach this can be time consuming as they will need to spend time with the bidders discussing the design and planning parameters, layout and functionality of the building as each of them undertake RIBA Stage A and B of the process. Under the design concept only approach, once the selection has taken place, the design team start at the beginning of the design process RIBA Stage A.
8.67 In conclusion, given the specialist nature of leisure and the plethora of experienced architects it is uncommon to use a design competition to procure a design team.
Timescales and Costs of Construction Routes
8.68 We have consulted with both Mace Project Management Ltd and S&P Architects to confirm the timescales/ plans and professional fees associated with each of these procurement routes.
Construction Timescales
8.69 The table below summarises the key milestones for the procurement methodologies for typical leisure contracts.
Table 8.6 Key Milestone Dates
D&B D&B Estimated Timescales Traditional DBOM (1 Stage) (2 Stage)
Appointment of Professional Team (Advisors) to Construction Start on 13 11 9 18 Site (Months)*
*average 4.3 weeks per month
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 77
8.70 It can be seen that in all cases the RIBA procurement process of a traditional building contract on its own is shorter than the procurement of a design, build, operating and maintain contract (DBOM), however in reality the development of the designs by the Council are likely to be substantially longer than anticipated. If the Council decides to use the Traditional method and design its self then this will take longer than the Design and Build options; which may save from 2 to 4 months in procurement. In addition the Design and Build Contract benefits from the leisure Operator input into the design stages at C and D (if required), the timelines may be extended until a short list of leisure Operators have been determined – a staggered process approach.
8.71 The use of a framework agreement to appoint the professional team and the main Contractor may reduce the above timescales (not DBOM) by a month or two; saving time in the appointment in the professional team. It will still take the same period through a framework and the Design and Build method. There will be minimal savings in the main Contractor appointment as this can be undertaken during the planning application phase and the completion of Stage D detailed design so there is no real difference then between framework and Design and Build approach in relation to this area.
Costs associated with Procurement
8.72 There are a number of costs relating to the procurement of a construction project, and some of these costs will fall directly to the Council, and others will be reflected within the project capital costs (e.g. a DBOM Contract would include the project capital costs). An analysis of the split between the Council and the Contractor are included in Appendix B. The table below summaries the costs; which are high level estimates based upon a £15 million leisure facility.
Table 8.7 Summary of Professional Fees and Costs linked to building contract value
D&B (1 D&B (2 Traditional DBOM Stage) Stage)
Total Fees (2012/13 prices) £1,573,500 £1,350,000 £1,408,500 £1,573,500 under OGC Framework
Council – upfront costs before Main Contractor £1,573,500 £742,500 £845,100 £0 appointed
Contractor – included in £0 £607,500 £563,400 £1,573,500 Capital Cost of Project
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 78
8.73 This table does not include for the associate Cost of Risk or uncertainly of the design; things that have previously been discussed in this report. These costs exclude the cost of legal, technical and financial advisors employed by the Council and the Main Contractor.
8.74 With regard to the DBOM, this is an estimate as each consortia price their teams differently with different risk and reward structures. There is often more reluctance in the market to expend significant fees ‘at risk’ during the bid process, meaning that the dialogue needs to be carefully structured such that costs are incurred towards the end of the process when there is greater certainty of success for bidders.
Operator Procurement Options for a Leisure Management Contract
8.75 The Council already has a leisure Trust managing their facilities to 2017; for completeness we have included a number of different procurement options for an Operator to manage the new facilities and the approaches to procuring a leisure Operator are:
using the restricted procedure
using competitive dialogue
as part of the Design Build Operate and Maintain (DBOM) contract
8.76 It should be noted that the procurement of a leisure Operator has its own timescales which can be longer than it takes to procure the construction contract, however it is dependent upon the complexity of the Council business requirements In addition, if the Council believe that it is important for a new leisure Operator to have an input into the final design or finishes; where the latter applies, the detailed design and planning can be delayed pending the appointment of the preferred Operator following the submission of their proposal and price.
Restricted Procedure
8.77 This has been used as the main approach to procuring a leisure contract which pre- qualifies a list of leisure Operators; who price against an agreed set of specifications and contract terms. Which they may or may not include a relatively low level of capital investment, normally the provision of fitness equipment or limited refurbishment and there is no negotiation.
8.78 In terms of the restricted procedure the Council may ask for mandatory variant bids to test the value for money of different levels of risk transfer, contract length, etc. This process tends to be shorter than the use of the competitive dialogue process, where the process is extended for discussion or dialogue and there are normally two stages in the process.
Competitive Dialogue
8.79 In some cases, competitive dialogue is used where the Council are not clear on its business requirements and requests leisure Operators to submit their own proposals on how to meet the overall Council requirements. These may relate to larger capital investment requirements or commercial terms of the contract or complex service
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 79
delivery proposals, such as those involving emerging health & wellbeing requirements. Both mandatory and optional variant proposals are allowed.
8.80 This approach can take longer to procure as there are a number of “dialogue” meetings to discuss the different approaches relating to commercial arrangements, capital investment, services, etc., and there are normally a final tender stage, where a maximum of two bidders are left in the competition with solutions that meet the Council requirements. Although more time consuming, this approach enables the Council to engage with Operators and to develop solutions to best meet their needs.
DBOM Contract
8.81 The leisure management contract which links the operation, maintenance and construction of new facilities (the DBOM Contract) can take longer to procure as the design is being developed by the bidder, there are a number of process stages where bidders are deselected and the scheme will require planning permission. These can be used in combination with new build facilities and the operation of existing facilities, with the management fee changing when the new facilities are operational.
Operator Timescales
8.82 In parallel the procurement of an Operator under separate contract arrangements can take between 12 months (restricted) 15 months (competitive dialogue) and 18 months for a DBOM contract.
Projected Advisor Costs
8.83 The table below sets out an estimation of costs to the Council in procuring advisors to support the different leisure Operator management contract routes – it is worth noting that only the DBOM route assumes any capital works, thus this is the only one in which technical advisors are included and this fee needs to be considered in light of the separate fees associated with a design & build procurement.
8.84 All of these fees assume that the emerging Sport England procurement toolkit template documents are used as a basis, thus minimising dialogue on general issues and reducing the fees associated with bespoke legal drafting in particular.
Table 8.8 Estimated Advisor Costs
Competitive DBOM All £ Restricted Dialogue Contract
Leisure/Finance 24,000 31,000 41,000
Legal 25,000 40,000 70,000
Technical - - 40,000
Total 49,000 71,000 151,000
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 80
8.85 It should also be noted that there may be some additional costs associated with establishing the condition of the buildings or land being transferred (Condition Surveys) that may incur the Council will additional costs than stated above. It excludes all professional team costs or project manager costs associated with the construction element of the project.
Summary
Procurement Package Options for the Council
8.86 The purpose is to determine the most suitable procurement package for both design and construction and also the leisure Operator. This would normally require an evaluation of each of the options against the Weighted Evaluation Criteria.
8.87 It is recommended that all procurement approaches should follow the OJEU process; regardless of whether there is a formal requirement to do so, (relevant for the Operator element only) to minimise the risk of legal challenge to process.
8.88 At the present time, the Council’s preference (in order) is to identify the option that:
• Generates cost certainty (20%)
• Meets quality expectations in terms of design (15%)
• Considers the best solution using whole life costs (10%)
• Delivers programme certainty (10%)
• Council can influence the design (10%)
Summary of Key Dates
8.89 The table below sets out the summary of the indicative timescales under Option A where the Council want the operator to be involved in the design process with them, and Option B where the construction contract is procured and the operating contract are made within 12 months of the projected opening date of the new facility. This assumes that there is no immediate deadline for any existing leisure operating contract already in place which may influence the timings.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 81 are DBOM Contract DBOM Contract Operator The scheme presented to will be that of the Council the bidding consortia and whole life cost a will have approach. All risks associated with operation and construction with the bidding consortia. There are Contract (CD) with separate Two Stage D&B 82 82 Operator Contract (R) der each approach. Please note that these with separate Two Stage D&B Operator (CD) Separate D&B and As Restricted, although some flexibility in operator market for operators to present their own risk transfer positions, accepting that these may affect the evaluation of their Operator Contract (CD) with separate One Stage D&B One Stage Separate D&B and Operator Contract (R) Under Restricted process, Council set a contract non-negotiable this can position and risk full include transfer, but this needs to be balanced with the market to ensure Operator Contract (R) and separate One Stage D&B One Stage nstruction Contract to be Signed ssessment of the impact key issues un
(R) Operator 13 months 13 months 12 months* 13 months 15 months* 11 months 12 months* 11 months 15 months* 18 months 9 months 9 months N/A Traditional Contract (R) and separate Traditional and Operating Contract Under the Restricted Council Process, the sets a non-negotiable Council contract. The develops the full design and therefore on retains the full risk the and planning
r
*construction procurement delayed from Operator. *construction to allow input Risk Transfe Table 8.9 Table Summary of Key Dates for Co Review of Key Issues affecting Strategy Issues affecting Strategy Review of Key Table 8.10 – Evaluation of Key Issues 8.10 – Table Option A – Operator to design influence Option B – Operator does not design influence The table below sets out at a high level a level at a high The table below sets out not weighted for relative importance. Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre Centre Leisure New Workington for Proposed Report
8.90
DBOM Contract
some standard risks retained on by the Council benchmarking, utilities etc. Process can take longer and Process can therefore inflation risk on Whole life construction. applied balancing costing is on- costs with initial capital going revenue costs. Fees are generally lower as to work consortia seeks partially at risk. Advisor fees are marginally more expensive as approach is more complex. through Design controlled linked output specification to outcomes and details of based upon facility mix
83 83 83 Operator (CD)
Separate D&B and bid. Process takes longer than restricted and therefore some additional inflationary risk compared to Restricted process. fees are Construction possibly higher for contract. separate D&B variations Possible cost in design post appointment of main contract and development of production drawings. Advisor fees lower than DBOM Same as Restricted process. Separate D&B and Operator Contract (R) project is attractive to risk operators. Planning is retained by Council. risk is Construction transferred post planning but possible issues on price Council variations where requirements not sufficiently specific on design. Less of inflationary risk Less of inflationary as process can be completed earlier. Risk by variations of cost and main contractor professional fees similar to other D&B approaches. Advisor fees the lowest. control has full Council over design team they of the approval have full lead design) but this can (R) Traditional and Operating Contract design. No input is made by an operator and therefore the project is led client/advisor test for without any build-ability or operations. This is a longer longer a This is construction procurement process leading to the possibility of increased inflationary pressures on the capital costs. fees The professional are highest to the cost All Council. at the variations are risk. Council with internal issues decision making (stakeholder
Affordability/Impact on Cost Over Control Council Design
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre
Bidders
DBOM Contract
present designs reflecting operating needs and input from main contractor. business case. Standard arrangement with has longest timescale which record of strong track achievability within time period referred to above. Dialogue needs to be carefully managed. There is a market for DBOM the contracts although bidders are more limited due to the experience of only some of the operators. It smaller would exclude leisure trusts who may have limited experience in this costs contract area. Planning
84 84 84 Operator (CD) Separate D&B and As with the Restricted approach but time extended due to a further stage in the process and dialogue discuss and meetings to agree best commercial decisions with operator. (By how much time?) Same as Restricted Process. Separate D&B and Operator Contract (R) to difficulties in signing in signing to difficulties on off design impacting timescale, (reword) but a design Council get that they want but without significant main from influence contractor Shortest period to achieve both design and leisure operator, (see table 6.1 above) although design programme needs adjustment to tie in with operator procurement to allow some level of operator input into the outline design. Familiar to bidders, reduces the risk to leisure operators as D&B contract does not directly involve them. Will bring in other bidders who have limited or no track DBOM record using
(R) Traditional and Operating Contract management, etc) takes This method longer to procure than the D&B Contract but is quicker than the DBOM contract which is more sophisticated and combines design, and construction due operations. This is to the procurement of the main contractor when the designs are complete so there is no twin tracking of work load. the construction market. Would allow separate choice of operator by Council. There are also many framework agreements covering construction.
Timescale Market Interest to A familiar approach
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre
st
ng is ng is
DBOM 30.00 - 15.00
DBOM Contract
Build + and risk are an issue with and risk are an issue the market and these can adversely significantly impact on market interest. Design and 30.00 - 20.00 Operator (CD)
85 85 85 Build + (RED) in the ranking. The detailed scori (RED) in the ranking. Design and Operator (R) s and highlighted the highlighted s and table with the highe 30.00 50.00 25.00
Operator (CD) Separate D&B and 10.00
Traditional 50.00 50.00 -
% 5% 10% 10% Council Weightings Separate D&B and Operator Contract (R) contracts. The issue of or planning does not landownership impact on the delivery of a management contract. t scores (ORANGE) and score that is last that is last and score (ORANGE) t scores and 5 is best compared to the other option and 5 is best compared deadline set
(R) Traditional and Operating Contract w quickly the facility can Criteria
be ready for use) Evaluation of Each of the Options 8.11 Table Evaluation of each Procurement Option Programme certainty at the appointment of the based upon the level and detail of main contractor the tender documents. longstop date - Achieving programme Speed of delivery (i.e. ho by Council for building to be available for service. be available for service. by Council for building to (May 2015) The Weighted Evaluation Criteria has been used toprocurementCriteria has score each The Weighted Evaluation packages. We have used a scoring system of 1 to 5, 1 is worst compared to other which options highes third (GREEN), second highest (YELLOW), shown in Appendix E to this report.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre
8.91
2
76% DBOM 20.00 75.00 100.00 50.00 25.00 15.00 25.00 8.33 8.33 8.33 380.00
3
74% Build + Design and 75.00 40.00 90.00 40.00 20.00 15.00 20.00 6.67 6.67 6.67 370.00 Operator (CD)
86 86 86 Build + Design and Operator (R) 75.00 30.00 90.00 30.00 20.00 15.00 20.00 6.67 6.67 6.67 405.00
4 1 66% 81% Traditional 75.00 75.00 50.00 80.00 30.00 5.00 15.00 5.00 1.67 3.33 6.67 331.67
% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 15% 10% 20% 10% Council Weightings
Criteria involvement (linked to
buildability and costs) The ability to achieve quality expectations – exemplar buildings Influence on design development by the Council of price being held post Cost certainty - likelihood contract award life costs (both capital Optimisation of whole and net operating costs) Contractor Early Main be made to the building changes to Flexibility for design during the works delivery ownership (accountability) Single point third parties design risk to Transfer of Transfer of construction risk to third parties risk to third parties operational Transfer of Score Total Weighted % of Maximum Score Rank
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre
8.92 It should be noted that the most suitable procurement option that meets the needs of the Council is the Design and Build Contract with a separate procurement (if required) of the Operator using the restricted process, although we note that the Council already has its operator who can assist with the design input etc. from an operational perspective.
8.93 Although it can be seen that other options score higher on a number of other criteria when compared to the D&B contract, the impact of weightings for each criteria and the fact that some of the higher weightings relate to high scores for the D&B approach, result in the D&B contract scoring higher than the other options. A key issue is timing, and the D&B provides the opportunity to meet the Council’s requirements for a 2015 opening compared to the other options.
Procurement Strategy Conclusion
8.94 There are a number of different procurement routes for the construction contract, with a number of variations relating to the use of design competition and the use of framework agreements plus the need to use either restricted or competitive dialogue depending upon the complexity of the scheme and how clear the Council is on its requirements.
8.95 Each route provides different costs, risks and timescales from the traditional build only contract through to the DBOM type contract, with variations of Design and Build Contracts in between.
8.96 We have assumed that the Council will use the existing Trust to provide input into the design and therefore given the need to control the design, to have the facility built as soon as possible and transfer as much risk as is possible, we would conclude that the use of a D&B contract (two stage) would provide the best logical solution.
8.97 Some of the benefits of the DBOM may be achieved from using the existing Trust and negotiating changes to their contract based upon the new design and layout of the project. On this basis, design risk would be transferred to the main contractor after planning and the trust would take operating risk (income and costs).
8.98 We recommend a D&B approach (two stage) based upon the information that has been provided and the evaluation criteria applied.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 87
9. Summary and Conclusion
Summary
9.1 This business case report sets out the demand and supply within the market which has been used to determine the recommended facility mix for the new facility. Following the completion of the facility mix, a review was undertaken in relation to the most suitable site which was then used to establish the projected 5 year business plan for the new facility. Following these stages of the process, the report reviewed the most suitable procurement approach to the construction of the new facility.
Current and Proposed Facilities
9.2 The current Workington Leisure Centre and Pool is split into 2 buildings, the Sports Centre building and the Swimming Pool building. It is operated by Carlisle Leisure Limited (the Trust). The investment proposal set out in the table below has been put forward by the Trust to improve the facility.
Table 9.1 – Current Facility Mix and Investment Proposal
Facilities Current Investment Proposed Sports Hall 4 courts 4 courts Health and 50 stations (extending to 75) 100 stations plus kids gym Fitness Gym 2 multi-purpose studios (also Studio Yes Spinning meeting rooms) Main Pool 6 lane x 25m 8 lane x 25m, dismountable floor
Learner Pool Yes Yes Spectator 150 seats on balcony 100 seats Seating Squash Courts 4 courts (3 in use) 2 courts Yes individual male and Dry Changing Yes individual male and female female Yes individual male and Wet Changing Yes individual male and female female Catering Service Cafe, bar and vending Cafe, bar and catering facilities Soft Play Area Yes (in squash court) Yes Football Yes for outside pitches Yes for 3G pitches Changing Climbing N/A 2 story climbing wall
Spa/Sauna N/A Health Suite (Pool Hall)
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 88
Facilities Current Investment Proposed 6 x 6-a-side pitches and 1 UEFA standard 3G training pitch – floodlit 3G Facility N/A (154m x 80m maximum to accommodate multi-sports) Boxing Gym Yes No
2 Rooms (1 after gym No - moved to multi-purpose dance Meeting Rooms extension) studios
Activity Hall 2 courts/Studio No All Weather Yes hard surface - size of 2 See 3G football facility Space pitches
Demographic Analysis
9.3 The main thrust of the report was to establish levels of demand for the proposed facility types. In order to understand the propensities to participate in activities, FMG reviewed the local demographics of the catchment area for the proposed new Workington Leisure Centre site, including the details of the health and economic activity of the local population and its market segmentation and propensity to participate of in sport using the Sport England local profile analysis.
9.4 The key findings from this analysis were as follows:
There are a low number of young people aged under 35 compared to the national average, low numbers of families with dependent children and the lower social grades C2, D and E are represented in higher than average numbers which is negative in terms of generating income for some leisure activities.
The most prevalent segments in the catchment area as defined by the Sport England Market Segmentation analysis are all aged 36 or over with only two of the most prevalent five segments having above average levels of activity. Again, this is not positive for income generating activities.
The catchment area performs badly in 3 out of 5 of the Sport England KPI's which judge the levels of people taking part in physical activity, volunteering, being club members, receiving tuition and taking part in organised competition. Only taking part in organised competition and volunteering are above both regional and national averages.
Obesity is marginally above the national average in adults (24.3% v 24.2%) but more so in children (20.7% v 18.7%). Consideration needs to be given to pricing and programming and types of activity that would encourage participation in light of the obesity levels and ageing demographic profile.
Demand and Supply
9.5 The report also looked specifically at the supply and demand statistics for each proposed facility type at the new Workington Leisure Centre in order to identify the most appropriate facilities required for the catchment area demographics. On the basis of the demographic and supply and demand analysis a facility mix was recommended for the new facility.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 89
9.6 The recommended facility mix and the justification for it are set out in the table overleaf.
Table 9.2 – Recommended Facility Mix
Facilities Commentary
It is important for swimming pool provision to remain in Workington. The Borough of Allerdale and District of Copeland both have good provision. The current centre is underperforming financially with 419m2 of pool water. The proposed 8 lane facility and learner pool will provide 516m2 and FMG Swimming Pool recommend that the proposed 8 lane pool (with a moveable floor) and learner pool should be included within the new facility mix as a new facility will increase visits from surrounding areas, providing the largest pool in the catchment.
The current facility is extending from 50 stations to 75 stations in the near future. The latent demand report only estimated demand in the area for 36 stations. However, this report was conducted on the existing site with a large drive time catchment whereas a new facility will attract further Health and members. After analysis of the demographics, the population and the Fitness Gym current user numbers, FMG recommend that a more realistic target is for a 375m2 gym with an initial circa 60 stations (25 members a station) with the opportunity to increase to 75 stations with provision for free weights and warm up/warm down areas.
Given the increase in memberships and growth in classes FMG recommend a 200m studio with moving wall to allow for two separate 100m2 studios, Dance Studios which will provide flexible space for both large and small classes. Storage is also required for spinning bikes and dance class equipment.
Workington Leisure Centre and Pool has a 4 court sports hall which is the only facility that provides public use throughout the day. The proposed new site also includes a 4 court sports hall. FMG concur with this proposal and recommend that a 4 court hall is maintained, as this is more flexible than a Sports Hall 3 court hall. Current provision is good in the local authority and the current income is below the benchmark. However, a new facility is likely to attract additional users and reach the circa £15,000 benchmark per badminton court.
Currently, there are 4 courts at the Workington Leisure Centre and Pool, however only 3 are in use. We recommend that two courts are included in the proposed facility mix. The current facility is struggling financially, and Squash considering the current facility is the only provision in the area, it is likely the popularity of the sport is declining however a two court space with a moveable wall could provide enough flexibility to increase income from this area.
There is currently a small soft play facility that is estimated to receive 99 visits a week. We recommend that a soft play facility is not included in the proposed facility mix due to the current competition in Workington and the Soft Play lack of young children to participate. We recommend that soft play activities could be incorporated within the sports hall and squash court during off-peak periods.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 90
Facilities Commentary
The proposed plan for the new Workington Leisure Centre is to include six 6-a-side pitches and a UEFA standard 3G training pitch. After analysing the area, FMG believe that there is not significant demand for a commercial facility for small sided football, and the facility would benefit from having the training pitch only (full size 154m x 80m maximum), that can be used for multiple sports (including Rugby) including the potential for the pitch to 3G STP Pitches be split into small sided football pitches. The town of Workington currently has no 3G pitch provision. FMG recommends an artificial pitch 3G is provided covering where possible football and rugby (154m x 80m max including run offs). Subject to demand and land availability the provision of the 6 a side pens are considered as a Phase 2 project which is subject to the annual performance of the new 3G pitch.
The plans for the proposed new leisure centre include a 2 storey climbing wall. After analysing the demographics and the population and potential Climbing return, FMG recommend that a small climbing wall should be included in the proposed facility mix.
There are a number of facilities in the catchment that offer similar or additional facilities. The proposed spa as defined in the Trust’s presentation appears to be a health suite at pool side, and will enhance the offer to residents and users, but will not generate the levels of income that Health Suite a full day spa can generate, subject to demand. Given the location and competition, it is unlikely that there would be sufficient turnover within the wet day spa business to provide a breakeven operation. FMG would recommend a health suite only as this improves the offer to users and the market positioning of the facility.
Based upon the proposed facility mix in this revised report, it is clear that a “Costa Coffee” type catering arrangement would be well suited to the site, providing it with an exclusive feel. Catering should be limited to Panini style food or sandwiches but no other type of hot food. FMG would suggest Catering that the bar is linked with the catering facility, offering a selection of alcohol products that have a long shelf life (e.g. bottle beer rather than kegs) and only a limited range. Vending should also be provided within the facility. FMG would recommend a café, vending and bar facility (without kitchen).
Site Analysis and Evaluation
9.7 Following the establishment of the potential demand and the facility mix, this section reviews the possible sites for the new Workington Leisure Centre. The Council went to public consultation on three different sites, being:
Site 1 - Brow Top and land adjacent to it
Site 2 - Brow Top Car Park
Site 3 – Moorclose
9.8 The table below sets out the final scores after the evaluation was completed.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 91
Table 9.3 - Evaluation Final Scores
Site Option Score
Site 1 - Brow Top and land adjacent to it 135
Site 2 - Brow Top Car Park 128.5
Site 3 - Moorclose 112.5
9.9 It can be seen that the Brow Top and adjacent land site scored the highest, with Site 2 second and the Moorclose site in third place. If weightings were applied, it is likely that the results would be in the same order, but the scoring differential would be significantly higher.
9.10 Although each of the site options scored better than the other sites on a number of different questions, in overall terms, and without weightings being applied to the questions, the Brow Top and adjacent land site (Site 1) scored the highest against the other sites on the following areas:
Council objective – contribution to economic development
The increased attractiveness of Workington town centre as a major retail and leisure destination will have significant advantages for existing town centre businesses that will benefit from the additional footfall and linked trips associated with the centre.
Accessible location increases the attractiveness of the facility as an employer for those with limited transport opportunities, particularly younger people.
Potential provision of these services would increase the attractiveness of the town to business sectors that require suitable social facilities, as well as attractiveness to industries who may seek to offer associated or complementary services such as hospitality, etc.
Improvements for quality of life for residents and visitors through improved function, cultural and assembly opportunities.
Council objective – improve the vibrancy of the town centre
Edge of centre location is ideal for large scale leisure facility which will increase the footfall within town centre, attractiveness of centre as a retail and leisure destination for residents and visitors, improve evening economy, increase linked trips and reduce the need to travel generally.
The development would increase the attractiveness of town centre residential units, therefore improving and promoting sustainability and the need of residents to travel or use their own car to access leisure uses.
At current time all major leisure facilities are provided in out of centre locations (cinema, bowling, sports centre) which are inevitably diverting trade away from the town centre, with significant implications for the centre's evening economy in particular.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 92
A major leisure centre in this location would provide an anchor facility which would increase the presence and diversity of visitors to the centre at different times of the day and evening, and would provide a catalyst for further ancillary and associated businesses, such as restaurants and shops.
Improved revenue generation and reduced operating subsidy
Increased footfall opportunities from better access and cross fertilisation with the shopping area and proposed commercial leisure activities (e.g. cinema, bowling etc.) is likely to increase income from an increase footfall for the leisure centre site. This would be greater than the footfall from the shopping area only.
Opportunity to share site with other organisations
National planning policy strongly advocates the shared use of community facilities (commercial leisure) to the wider benefit of the population.
Potential to incorporate businesses corporate facilities (gym memberships etc.), community function and assembly rooms are all suitable options which are in deficit within the Workington locality.
It is planned to incorporate other leisure activities on the site including cinema and indoor bowling etc. that will complement the leisure centre.
Leverage of capital receipts from site
The proposal to enhance the area with a new leisure centre and outdoor sports facilities is likely to increase the values for the leisure retail elements of the site, resulting from increased footfall and recognition for the site as being the leisure hub of West Cumbria.
Land ownership
The ownership of land needs to be confirmed.
Public Consultation
Although a close run between the Moorclose site (Site 3) and the Site 1, the Brow Top site was marginally the peoples preference by under 2%.
9.11 In conclusion Site Option 1 scored the highest and therefore is the site that provides the opportunity to meet the Council’s objectives, the best value of risk and capital costs and overall is better placed to increase footfall to the town and the leisure centre, which in turn will optimise the overall operational costs of the facility.
Business Plan
9.12 A business plan model has been prepared to determine the financial implications on the level of potential income, costs and the projected number of users that could arise from the planned new facility. A summary of the projected profit and loss is shown overleaf and has been extracted from the Business Plan model.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 93
Table 9.4 – Projected Profit and Loss Account g FINANCIAL SUMMARY YEARS 12345 INCOME
Dry side 74,944 79,108 83,272 83,272 83,272 Squash Courts 8,000 8,400 8,820 8,820 8,820 Health Suite 12,500 13,750 15,125 15,125 15,125 Health and Fitness 354,708 382,468 401,362 410,227 410,227 Swimming 225,029 236,873 248,716 248,716 248,716 STP 61,352 61,352 61,352 61,352 61,352 Rentals 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Café and Retail 97,839 103,508 108,027 109,182 109,182
TOTAL INCOME 854,373 905,458 946,675 956,694 956,694
YEARS 12345 EXPENDITURE
Staffing Costs Salaries and Wages 568,108 568,108 568,108 568,108 568,108
Premises Utilities 158,545 158,545 158,545 158,545 158,545 Repairs and Maintenance 40,842 40,842 40,842 68,070 68,070 Grounds Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 Cleaning 7,009 7,009 7,009 7,009 7,009 National Non-Domestic Rates 0 0 0 0 0 Life-Cycle Costs 00000 Total 206,395 206,395 206,395 233,623 233,623
Advertising & Marketing 15,000 0 0 0 0
Administration Insurances 00000 Printing, Postage and Stationery 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 IT (telephones / software / licences / website) 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Admin and Finance 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Other supplies and sundry items 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500
Cost of Sales Café and Retail 44,028 46,578 48,612 49,132 49,132
Central Costs, Overheads and Profit Central Costs 0 0 0 0 0 Irrecoverable VAT 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency / Profit 0 0 0 0 0 Total 00000
Total Expenditure 862,031 849,581 851,615 879,363 879,363
NET OPERATING COST/(SURPLUS) 7,657 (55,877) (95,059) (77,331) (77,331)
excluding life-cycle costs 7,657 (55,877) (95,059) (77,331) (77,331)
9.13 The detailed assumptions behind the income and expenditure projections are contained within this report.
9.14 Following discussions with Council Officers and the Trust, it was concluded that the current Workington Leisure Centre and Pool has an annual contribution from the Core Fund of £81,500 per annum for building improvements etc. and for depreciation for replacement equipment etc. This provision is outside this business plan but impact on the Budget Requirement of the Council.
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 94
Net Savings from Investment
9.15 The table below sets out details of the current costs and the projected costs under the new facility.
Table 9.5 - Summary of Savings from Investment
All £ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 New Facility Operating Cost / (Surplus) 7,657 - 55,877 - 95,059 - 77,331 - 77,331 Site Share of Management Fee by Trust 215,428 215,428 215,428 215,428 215,428 New Facility Lifecycle Cost 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 Tota Running Cost of New Facility 347,085 283,551 244,369 262,097 262,097
Current Centre Operating Cost / (Surplus) 89,057 89,057 89,057 89,057 89,057 Current share of CLL Corporate Cost 259,168 259,168 259,168 259,168 259,168 Curent cost from Core Fund 81,500 81,500 81,500 81,500 81,500 Less Demand on Core Fund - 81,500 - 71,500 - 61,500 - 41,500 - Total Running Cost of Current Facility 348,225 358,225 368,225 388,225 429,725
Projected Saving 1,140 74,674 123,856 126,128 167,628
9.16 It can be seen that the facility is projected to operate at a deficit at Year 1 of £7,657 which is significantly better than the current cost and improves over the first 5 years. We have also included the share of the Trusts central costs that are allocated to the Workington Leisure Centre. These have been adjusted to reflect some costs that are currently included in the central costs but are also included in the new facility operating costs.
9.17 The new facility requires a provision for building and equipment lifecycle of £124,000 to cover the replacement of operator fixture, fittings and equipment over the next 10 years and in terms of building lifecycle contributions for the new facility at this stage are based upon 10% of the capital cost divided by 25 years which would equate to an annual requirement for circa £36,000 per annum plus £18,000 for the 3G STP refresh of the carpet in 10 years’ time.
9.18 As a result, it can be seen that the net cost of the new facility in Year 1, taking into account the direct operating costs, the central costs and new lifecycle costs is £347,000 reducing to £262,000 by Year 5.
9.19 In terms of comparing these net costs with the current operating position, the current cost of the facility is £348,000 (which excludes costs met from the Core Fund).
9.20 It can be seen that the annual contribution for the current Workington facility from the Core Fund is £81,500 per annum (indexed) in the current year. In the first four years of the new facility as the contract comes to a close in 2019, the level of depreciation falls allowing some of the existing unused Core Fund to become available to finance part of the new lifecycle costs of the new facility.
Procurement Strategy
9.21 The purpose of this section of the report was to identify the procurement routes and implications for the construction of the new facility, and the potential operational management arrangements. The procurement strategy focused on the following key procurement methodologies:
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 95
Traditional approach where the Council controls the design and enters into a building contract
Design and build contract (D&B) including stage 1 and 2 methods
A Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) contract
Design competition, prior to the construction procurement
Design and Build contract using a framework agreement (e.g. OGC, SCAPE)
9.22 The Council used a number of key criteria to consider when assessing the most suitable procurement strategy, which will influence their procurement choice. The criteria for consideration:
Attitude to risk
Affordability
Control over design
Timescale
Market Interest
9.23 As part of this report, each option was evaluated to establish the most suitable option for the Council. The results of these are shown in the table below. Each route provided different costs, risks and timescales from the traditional build only contract through to the DBOM type contract, with variations of Design and Build Contracts in between.
Table 9.8 - Evaluation of each Procurement Option
Design and Design and Criteria Traditional Build + Build + DBOM Operator (R) Operator (CD)
Total Weighted Score 331.67 405.00 370.00 380.00
% of Maximum Score 66% 81% 74% 76%
Rank 4 1 3 2
9.24 It has been assumed that the Council will use the existing Trust to provide input into the design and therefore given the need to control the design, to have the facility built as soon as possible and transfer as much risk as is possible, we would conclude that the use of a D&B contract (two stage) would provide the best logical solution.
9.25 Some of the benefits of the DBOM may be achieved from using the existing Trust and negotiating changes to their contract based upon the new design and layout of the project. On this basis, design risk would be transferred to the main contractor after planning and the Trust would take operating risk (income and costs).
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 96
9.26 Based upon our evaluation we would recommend a D&B approach (two stage) based upon the information that has been provided and the evaluation criteria applied.
Conclusion
9.27 In conclusion, the report sets out a recommended facility mix, indicative business plan and savings that can be leveraged from the investment, site recommendation, a procurement recommendation which is summarised below:
Facility Mix – as set out in Table 9.2 above
Site – The Brow Top and adjacent land site nearest the town centre
Procurement Route – Two stage Design and Build Contract
Savings – in a mature year this is projected at £167,628 per annum
Further Information
9.28 For further information please contact Kevin Godden, FMG Consulting on +44 (0) 7710710847 at [email protected].
Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 97
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix 2: Brow Top and Land Adjacent Site Map
This page is intentionally left blank
flClllTIES
LEISURE CENTRE
25m x 8 .... I>ClG
RIVER DERWE NT FiIness ..... (l00IlUl_) lICITlOI.tII 2 .tuo:Iios ; I\ed)I& lIM
So!! play area
CRICKET GROUND Dry change (.... ""'ale spoIlS hall and fit"""" suite changing)
ChangOr!g """"" (linklld to ""tOoor sports pitchM) .OOUlll "".
EXTERNAL
FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT S••• TSUll CENTRE (FEC)
0r8matic atrium space inking 8. Top 10 recrHtiotl ~ below
Restautants & calM
PRO.OSED SWIMMIIS POOl, lEISURE CElm & " A new public sq uare flTlESS SYM flMIlY Em.TlIIMElr CEITRE: SRO.la nool PtII '--:."'••,.: .':'-=- ::'.--, . ~ mEIIOI
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix 3: Brow Top Site Map
This page is intentionally left blank
flClllTIES
LEISURE CENTRE
2!im K 8 "''''' pool
L...... ' I l6acI>ing pool
-,Health suite (gUlla' &1...... , Wet changing .....
• cowl oports Nln
Climbingw.1 RIVER DERWE NT llCITlal.lU FotneM wile (100 IlHon.)
Spinning I tudio
2 squash court.
Soli play ..... CRICKET GROUND Oty change (tepar.", sports kell and rMeSS suite changing)
Changing room. (linked 10 0UId00< .oatRlll sportS pilches) ~ ..
EXTERNAL
FIA size 3G IootbIoIf pilch
'OOClllrpa"' ~ S.IITS IIll --___...... -_._-_ ...... _ IMJ
, flTlESS GYM .la.DSED SWIMMIIG .aal & tElSUIE CENTIE: GROUND FlOOI .IIN EITEl lOR
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix 4: Moorclose
This page is intentionally left blank
fACilITIES
LEISURE CENTRE
...r<~.. ( 25m K 8 "''''' pool L...... ' Il6acI>ing pool
-,Health suite (gUlla ' &1...... , Wet changing .....
10CATI01 PUI
Spinning studio
2 squash court.
SOfl play .....
Oty change (tepar.... sports kell and rMe" suite changing)
Changing room. (linked 10 0UId00< POOIlAll S9O'IS pilches) ~.
PAR!(ING EXTERNAL '" ""'" FIA lin 3G IootbIoIl pilch 100 car pari< sp-.
SPOllSUll __ ...... _II'OCO .....J
, flTlESS GYM PIOPDSEO SWIMMIIG POOl & UISUaE CEITIE: GROUIO flOOI PUI EITEl lOR
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix 5: BMG Consultation Report
This page is intentionally left blank
Research Report
Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
Prepared for: Allerdale Borough Council
Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
Prepared for: Allerdale Borough Council Prepared by: Dominique Selby, Senior Research Executive, Jenna Allen, Associate Account Director Date: October 2013
Produced by BMG Research
© Bostock Marketing Group Ltd, 2013 www.bmgresearch.co.uk
Project: 9275
Registered in England No. 2841970
Registered office:
7 Holt Court North Heneage Street West Aston Science Park Birmingham B7 4AX UK
Tel: +44 (0) 121 3336006
UK VAT Registration No. 580 6606 32
Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Member No. B4626
Market Research Society Company Partner
British Quality Foundation Member
The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 20252:2006
The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 9001:2008
Investors in People Standard - Certificate No. WMQC 0614
Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) Member Company
Registered under the Data Protection Act - Registration No. Z5081943
The BMG Research logo is a trade mark of Bostock Marketing Group Ltd
Introduction
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background and method ...... 3 1.1.1 Confidence testing ...... 3 1.1.2 Localities ...... 4 1.1.3 Data tables ...... 6 1.1.4 Significance testing ...... 6 2 Results ...... 7 2.1 Current use of local leisure centres ...... 7 2.2 Preference for new leisure centre facilities ...... 9 2.2.1 New leisure centre option preference among leisure centre users ...... 10 2.2.2 New leisure centre option preference among current users of the Moorclose leisure centre ...... 11 2.2.3 Interaction of option choice, leisure centre use and location ...... 11 2.2.4 Reason for Option preference ...... 13 Sample profile ...... 15
1 Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Do you currently use a leisure centre? (All responses) ...... 7 Figure 2: If yes, which one? (Where respondent currently uses a leisure centre) ...... 8 Figure 3: Please indicate your preferred option? (All responses) ...... 9 Figure 4: Reasons for your preference? (All responses) ...... 13
Table of Tables
Table 1: Survey response by Locality ...... 4 Table 2: Leisure centre use by age ...... 7 Table 3: New leisure centre option preference by ward (All responses) ...... 9 Table 4: New leisure centre option preference among current users of the Moorclose leisure centre (All responses) ...... 11 Table 5: Interaction of Option choice, leisure centre use and location ...... 12 Table 6: Reasons for preference by Option ...... 14
2 Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and method In October 2013, Allerdale Borough Council commissioned BMG Research to process the data from the Council led consultation on site options for a new leisure centre for Workington. The survey was carried out by means of a self-completion questionnaire made available online, in all Council offices, Council owned leisure centres/facilities and via four face to face events hosted by the Council. By the end of the fieldwork period, 1645 individuals had responded to the survey. It was identified in the Council’s plan, ‘Council Commitment to Local Communities 2012-2015’ that there is a need to replace the existing leisure centre in Moorclose as it has 'passed it's sell by date'. Workington is the largest locality in the borough in terms of population etc and the current leisure centre is in the heart of a residential estate which sits on the edge of a town called Moorclose. There are three options being proposed for the new centre and although there are three options for a centre there are only two potential sites: Option 1 - to build near to the existing site at Moorclose and provide a centre with facilities similar to the current one; Option 2 - to build in the town centre on a site known as the Cloffocks and provide a centre with facilities similar to the current one; and Option 3 - to build in the town centre on a site known as the Cloffocks and provide a family entertainment centre which would include facilities such as a swimming pool, gym, sauna/steam room/Jacuzzi, cinema, bowling alley, coffee house/restaurant etc. The objective of this study is to establish which option is most popular among residents and the reasons behind this choice. Residents were asked to indicate the option they most prefer and give reasons for their preference. They were also asked if they currently use any of the borough's leisure centres and if so which one, their name, contact number, postcode, age and gender. The following report provides a summary of the key findings derived from the survey undertaken during August and September 2013.
1.1.1 Confidence testing A sample of 1645 is robust and is subject to a maximum standard error of ±2.42% at the 95% confidence level on an observed statistic of 50%. Thus, we can be 95% confident that responses are representative of those that would be given by the total adult population, if a census had been conducted, to within ±2.42% of the percentages reported. This means that if the total adult population of Allerdale had completed the survey and a statistic of 50% was observed, we can be 95% confident that the response lies between 47.58% and 52.42%.
3 Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
1.1.2 Localities
The breakdown of responses by location are shown in the table below:
Table 1: Survey response by Locality Demographic Proportion (%) Sample base Locality Aspatria 1% 15 Cockermouth 3% 48 Keswick *% 3 Maryport 6% 91 Silloth *% 1 Workington 64% 1054 Wigton 1% 11 Outside Allerdale 6% 95 No information 20% 327 Wards in Allerdale All Saints 1% 11 Aspatria *% 8 Boltons *% 1 Broughton St Bridget's 1% 16 Christchurch 1% 10 Clifton 2% 26 Crummock *% 1 Dalton 1% 10 Derwent Valley *% 1 Ellen 1% 18 Ellenborough 1% 16 Ewanrigg 1% 23 Flimby 1% 16 Harrington 4% 72 Holme *% 1 Keswick *% 2 Marsh *% 1 Moorclose 13% 221 Moss Bay 9% 146 Netherhall 1% 18 Seaton 8% 126 Silloth *% 1 Solway *% 4 St John's 13% 222 St Michael's 11% 185
4 Introduction
Stainburn 3% 56 Wampool *% 1 Warnell *% 1 Waver 0% 0 Wharrels *% 3 Wigton *% 6 No information 20% 327 Wards outside Allerdale Arlecdon *% 7 Bransty 1% 16 Cleator Moor North *% 5 Cleator Moor South *% 1 Distington 1% 18 Egremont North *% 5 Egremont South *% 7 Ennerdale *% 3 Frizington *% 7 Gosforth *% 2 Greystoke *% 1 Harbour *% 4 Hensingham *% 1 Hillcrest *% 4 Holborn Hill *% 1 Kells *% 1 Mid Furness *% 1 Mirehouse *% 1 Moresby *% 1 Sandwith *% 3 Seascale *% 1 St Bees *% 2 Windermere Bowness North *% 2 Yewdale *% 1 *denotes <0.5%
Analysis by geographical location will be included in the report for those areas with sufficiently large enough bases, as highlighted in the table above. The rows which are shaded blue represent the wards in Workington.
5 Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
1.1.3 Data tables A set of data tables has been produced, which presents the results broken down by the groups listed below. These cross tabulations are based on the information gathered on all respondents. Gender; Age; Locality; Use of local leisure centres.
In addition, further cross tabulations have been run on this data to allow analysis among groups that are relevant to the subject matter of this survey.
1.1.4 Significance testing Please note that significance testing to opposite sample groups (e.g. male to female, age) is included within this report and is noted in bold and is underlined within tables. This means we can be 95% confident that there is a significant difference. Please note that throughout the report the word ‘significant’ has only been used to refer to those figures, which have been proved to be statistically significant through this test.
6 Results
2 Results
2.1 Current use of local leisure centres In order to understand the use of leisure centres among those who responded to the survey, respondents were asked to indicate whether they currenttly use any leisure centre facilities. Approaching seven in ten (69%) respondents indicate that they do currently use a leisure centre. One in four (25%) state they do not, while one in fourteen (7%) did not provide an answer.
Figure 1: Do you currently use a leisurre centre? (All responses)
Yes 69%
No 25%
Not Answered *% Prefer not to say 7%
Unweighted sample base = 1645 *denotes < 0.5%
The proportion of respondents who indicate that they use a leisure centre is consistent by gender, but shows some variation by age as outlined in the table below. The proportion of respondents who indicated their age and that they use a leisure centre (1,161 people) is significantly higher among respondents ageed 49 and younger compared with those aged 50 and over (Under 16: 86%, 16-34: 80%, 35-49: 76%, 50+: 67%).
Table 2: Leisure centre use by age Under 16 16‐34 35‐49 50+ Yes 86% 80% 76% 67% No 10% 19% 24% 31% Base 71 443 324 323
7 Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
Looking by ward as outlined in the table below, leisure centre use is significantly higher among those from Harrington (88%), Moss Bay (79%) and Stainburn (84%) compared with those from Seaton (68%), St John’s (72%) and St Michael’s (65%).
St. St. Total Harrington Stainburn Moss bay Moorclose John's Seaton Michael's Clifton Yes 69% 88% 84% 79% 77% 72% 68% 65% 62% No 25% 11% 14% 19% 19% 27% 28% 32% 35% Prefer not to say 7% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 4% 3% 4% Not Answered *% 0% 0% 0% *% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sample Bases 1645 72 56 146 221 222 126 185 26
Those who indicate that they currently use a leisure centre (1127 respondents), were asked to indicate which leisure centre facilities they use. The facility most commonly indicated by respondents is the Workington Leisure Centre (80%). Following on from this, 4% of respondents indicate that they use the Cockermouth Leisure Centre, while one in fifty indicate that they use the Intrim facilities, Netherall, Maryport and Whitehaven facilities (all 2%).
Figure 2: If yes, which one? (Where respondent currently uses a leisure centre)
Workington Leisure Centre 80%
Cockermouth Leisure Centre 4%
Intrim 2%
Netherhall, Maryport 2%
Swimming pools/baths (un‐specified) 2%
Whitehaven 2%
Other 3%
Not provided 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Unweighted sample base = 1127
There is little variation in the leisurre centres used by demographics,, including location, evident in the data.
8 Results
2.2 Preference for new leisure centre facilities The respondents were presented with the three options for new leisure centre facilities in the area outlined below: Option 1 - to build near to the existing site at Moorclose and provide a centre with facilities similar to the current one; Option 2 - to build in the ttown centre on a site known as the Cloffocks and provide a centre with facilitiees similar to the current one; and Option 3 - to build in the ttown centre on a site known as the Cloffocks and provide a family entertainment centre which would include facilities such as swimming pool, gym, sauna/steam room/Jacuzzi, cinema, boowling alley, coffee house/restaurant etc. Respondents were then asked to indicate which option they prefeerred, the results of which are illustrated in the figure below. None of the three options are preferred by a majority of respondents; however the option preferred by the highest proportion of respondents is Option 3 (46%), closely followed by Option 2 (44%). One in ten (10%) respondents indicate that they prefer Option 2.
Figure 3: Please indicate your preferred option? (All responses)
Option 1 44%
Option 2 10%
Option 3 46%
Not Answered 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Unweighted sample base = 1645
Option preference shows significant variation by age, with a significantly higher proportion of respondents aged 50 and over indicating that they prefer Option 1 compared to those aged 49 and below (Under 16: 31%, 16-34: 40%, 35-49: 40%, 50+: 54%). By contrast, a significantlyy higher proportion of those ageed 49 and younger indicate that they prefer Option 3, compared with those aged 50 annd over (Under 16: 62%, 16-34: 51%, 35-49: 50%, 50+: 34%).
9 Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
The table below summarises the difference by ward where there is a sufficient base size to compare. The green shading highlights where the proportion of residents from a specific ward who indicate that they prefer one of the options, is 10-percentage points or more higher than the total sample proportion. The proportion of respondents who indicate that they prefer Option 1 is significantly higher among those from Harrington (71%), Moorclose (78%) and Moss Bay (61%) compared with those from Seaton (24%) and St Michael’s (28%). By contrast, the proportion of respondents who indicate that they prefer Option 2, is significantly higher among those from Seaton (17%), St John’s (12%) and St Michael’s (12%), compared with those from Harrington (3%) and Moorclose (3%). The proportion of respondents who indicate that they prefer Option 3 is lowest among those from Moorclose (18%). Respondents from Seaton (59%), St John’s (47%) and St Michael’s (59%) are significantly more likely to indicate that they prefer Option 3, when compared with those from Harrington (26%), Moorclose (18%) and Moss Bay (33%).
Table 3: New leisure centre option preference by ward (All responses) Moss St. St. Total Harrington Moorclose Bay Seaton Stainburn John's Michael's Option 1 44% 71% 78% 61% 24% 50% 41% 28% Option 2 10% 3% 3% 6% 17% 9% 12% 12% Option 3 46% 26% 18% 33% 59% 41% 47% 59% Not provided 1% 0% *% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Base 1645 72 221 146 126 56 222 185 *denotes < 0.5% 2.2.1 New leisure centre option preference among leisure centre users The proportion of residents who indicate that they prefer Option 1 is significantly higher among those who currently use a leisure centre (50%) compared with those who don’t (26%). By contrast, the proportion of respondents who indicate that they prefer Option 2 is significantly higher among those who do not currently use a leisure centre (16%) compared with those who do (7%). Similarly, the proportion of respondents who indicate that they prefer Option 3 is significantly higher among those who do not use a leisure centre (57%) compared with those who do (42%).
10 Results
2.2.2 New leisure centre option preference among current users of the Moorclose leisure centre More than half of those surveyed (54%), indicate that they currently use Moorclose leisure centre, while 13% use a different leisure centre and 32% did not indicate that use any leisure centre facilities. Among those current users of the existing Moorclose facilities, the most preferred Option, is Option 1, as indicated by 53% of respondents, and this proportion is significantly higher than among non-users of the existing Moorclose leisure centre (53% vs 34%). The proportion of respondents who indicate that they prefer Option 2 is significantly higher among those who do not currently use the existing Moorclose facilities (13%) compared with those who do (7%). Similarly the proportion who indicate that they prefer Option 3 is significantly higher among non-users of the existing facilities (52%) compared with users (40%). Table 4: New leisure centre option preference among current users of the Moorclose leisure centre (All responses) User of Moorclose Total leisure centre Non‐user Option 1 44% 53% 34% Option 2 10% 7% 13% Option 3 46% 40% 52% Not provided 1% *% 1% Base 1645 896 221
2.2.3 Interaction of option choice, leisure centre use and location The table below summarises the interaction between leisure centre use, location and the respondents preferred option. One in fourteen (7%) respondents who currently use Moorclose leisure centre and live in Moorclose preferred option 1; One in five (21%) respondents who currently use Moorclose leisure centre but do not live in Moorclose, preferred option 1. One in eleven (9%) respondents that preferred option 1 - Moorclose, do use a leisure centre and do live at Moorclose; One in four respondents (26%) that preferred option 1 - Moorclose, do use a leisure centre and do not live at Moorclose; Fewer than one in twenty (2%) respondents who do not use a leisure centre, preferred option 1 - Moorclose and do live at Moorclose; One in twenty (5%) respondents who do not use a leisure centre, preferred option 1 - Moorclose and do not live at Moorclose; One in twelve (8%) respondents who preferred option 2 or option 3 currently use Moorclose Leisure Centre and do live in Moorclose; One in four (25%) respondents who preferred option 2 or option 3 currently use Moorclose Leisure Centre and do not live in Moorclose;
11 Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
Fewer than one in twenty (2%) respondents who do not use a leisure centre, preferred option 1 - Moorclose and do live in St Michaels; Approaching three in ten (27%) respondents who currently use Moorclose leisure centre but do not live in St Michaels, preferred option 1. Fewer than one in twenty (2%) respondents that preferred option 1 - Moorclose, do use a leisure centre and do live in St Michaels; One third of respondents (32%) that preferred option 1 - Moorclose, do use a leisure centre and do not live in St Michaels; Just 1% of respondents who do not use a leisure centre, preferred option 1 - Moorclose and do live in St Michaels; One in twenty (6%) respondents who do not use a leisure centre, preferred option 1 - Moorclose and do not live at St Michaels; Fewer than one in twenty (2%) respondents who preferred option 2 or option 3 currently use Moorclose Leisure Centre and do live in St Michaels; One in three (30%) respondents who preferred option 2 or option 3 currently use Moorclose Leisure Centre and do not live in St Michaels;
Table 5: Interaction of Option choice, leisure centre use and location
Voted for Option Uses leisure Uses Moorclose Lives in Lives in St Proportion of 1 centres leisure centre Moorclose Michaels total X 7% X na 21% na X 9% na X na 26% X na X 2% x na x na 5% X X 8% X X na 25%
X 2% na X 27% na X 2% na na X 32% X X X 1% X X na X 6% X X 2% X na X 30%
12 Results
2.2.4 Reason for Option preference Respondents were asked to indicaate the reason for their Option preference. No one reason was stated by a majority of respondents, however the reasoon most commonly stated was ease of access (33%). Following on from this, one in seven (14%) respondents state that the reason for their choice was the central loccation, while one in nine (11%) state parking facilities.
Figure 4: Reasons for your preference? (All responses)
Easily accessible / nearby location (inc other options are too far) 33% Placed in a ‘central’ location (incl. town cenntre) 14%
Affects on parking / parking issues/ facilities 11% Would be expanding/developing of an existing facility /site rather than building from scratch 10% Provides extra/ a wider range of facilities for area 10%
More family orientated 7% Not‐duplicating/ competing with exissting entertainment/leisure services 5% Best choice/ preferred option of those available 5%
Nearby/ accessible public transport services 3%
Would attract more people/visitors 3%
Good for the community (incl. area/town) 3%
All faciliities/services are placed together/at one location 2% Need more/ would improve existing sport facilities (e.g. running track, tennis courts) 2% Less danger /risk of flooding 2%
Help reduce the traffic congestion 2%
More space/room avvailable / easier expansion posssible 2%
Nearest site to the highest concretion of population 1%
Concerns about effects on the ‘Uppies & Downies’ event 1% Would Improve the economics of the area (more jjobs, more business, etc) 1% Not provided 16%
Other 6%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Unweighted sample base = 1635
13 Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
Looking at the reasons given for Option preference, by Option, it is clear that Option 1 is favoured for easy access and parking facilities, as well as building upon existing facilities rather than starting from scratch. Option 2 is preferred for its central location, as well as the parking facilities and the fact that it would not be competing with existing facilities. Finally, Option 3 is preferred as it is perceived to be a more family orientated Option and also to provide a wider range of facilities, on top of its central location. Table 6: Reasons for preference by Option
Prefered option Option Option Option 1 2 3 Affects on parking / parking issues/ facilities 21% 6% 3% Easily accessible / nearby location (inc other options are too far) 45% 32% 22% Better security/more secure/ better personal safety 1% 1% *% Would be expanding/developing of an existing facility /site rather than building from scratch 22% 0% *% Nearby/ accessible public transport services 1% 7% 4% Placed in a ‘central’ location (incl. town centre) *% 35% 23% Not‐duplicating/ competing with existing entertainment/leisure services 6% 19% 1% Nearest site to the highest concretion of population 2% 0% 0% All facilities/services are placed together/at one location 0% 1% 5% Concerns about effects on the ‘Uppies & Downies’ event 1% 3% 0% Other options are Illegal/ against regulations *% 0% 0% More family orientated *% 1% 14% Best choice/ preferred option of those available 7% 4% 5% Provides extra/ a wider range of facilities for area 1% 2% 20% Would attract more people/visitors *% 4% 5% Need more/ would improve existing sport facilities (e.g. running track, tennis courts) 2% 4% 2% Less danger /risk of flooding 5% 1% *% Good for the community (incl. area/town) 6% 0% 1% Located outside of town 1% 0% 0% Help reduce the traffic congestion 4% 1% 0% Personally don’t want them / think centres are needed *% 0% 0% More space/room available / easier expansion possible 4% 0% 0% Would Improve the economics of the area (more jobs, more business, etc) *% 0% 2% Other 6% 9% 6% None 0% 0% 0% Not provided 10% 18% 21% Sample Bases 727 159 749 *denotes < 0.5%
14 Sample profile
Sample profile
A summary of the profile of the respondents to this research is summarised in the table below.
Demographic Proportion (%) Sample base Gender Male 43% 713 Female 48% 784 Not provided 9% 148 Age Under 16 4% 71 16-34 27% 443 35-49 20% 324 50+ 20% 323 Not provided 29% 484 Locality Aspatria 1% 15 Cockermouth 3% 48 Keswick *% 3 Maryport 6% 91 Silloth *% 1 Workington 64% 1054 Wigton 1% 11 Outside Allerdale 6% 95 No information 20% 327
15 Consultation on site options for the new leisure centre for Workington.
Demographic Proportion (%) Sample base Wards in Allerdale All Saints 21% 311 Aspatria 5% 68 Boltons *% 1 Broughton St Bridget's 1% 16 Christchurch 1% 10 Clifton 2% 26 Crummock *% 1 Dalton 1% 10 Derwent Valley *% 1 Ellen 1% 18 Ellenborough 1% 16 Ewanrigg 1% 23 Flimby 1% 16 Harrington 4% 72 Holme *% 1 Keswick *% 2 Marsh *% 1 Moorclose 13% 221 Moss Bay 9% 146 Netherhall 1% 18 Seaton 8% 126 Silloth *% 1 Solway *% 4 St John's 13% 222 St Michael's 11% 185 Stainburn 3% 56 Wampool *% 1 Warnell *% 1 Waver 0% 0 Wharrels *% 3 Wigton *% 6 No information 20% 327
16 Sample profile
Demographic Proportion (%) Sample base Wards outside Allerdale Arlecdon *% 7 Bransty 1% 16 Cleator Moor North *% 5 Cleator Moor South *% 1 Distington 1% 18 Egremont North *% 5 Egremont South *% 7 Ennerdale *% 3 Frizington *% 7 Gosforth *% 2 Greystoke *% 1 Harbour *% 4 Hensingham *% 1 Hillcrest *% 4 Holborn Hill *% 1 Kells *% 1 Mid Furness *% 1 Mirehouse *% 1 Moresby *% 1 Sandwith *% 3 Seascale *% 1 St Bees *% 2 Windermere Bowness North *% 2 Yewdale *% 1
17
With more than 20 years’ experience, BMG Research has established a strong reputation for delivering high quality research and consultancy. BMG serves both the social public sector and the commercial private sector, providing market and customer insight which is vital in the development of plans, the support of campaigns and the evaluation of performance. Innovation and development is very much at the heart of our business, and considerable attention is paid to the utilisation of the most recent technologies and information systems to ensure that market and customer intelligence is widely shared.
Appendix 5: Robertson’s Gateway 2 Report
This page is intentionally left blank
Revision History
Rev 0 – 08/10/13 Initial Draft Rev A – 11/10/13 Updated to incorporate comments from internal team Rev B – 17/10/13 Updated to incorporate comments from planning / stakeholder meeting Rev C – 21/10/13 Updated to incorporate comments from WYG Rev D – 25/10/13 Final Draft, issued to client
Author Position Approved Position Date Chris Price Pre Construction Andy Mcleod Managing 25/10/13 Manager Director
Executive Summary
Allerdale Borough Council is proposing to replace their existing leisure centre facilities within Workington, Cumbria via the Scape Framework 3 procurement route with Robertson North of England being the contractor allocated by Allerdale Borough Council. The framework is a partnership agreement between Allerdale Borough Council and Robertson North of England. The partnership is working very well and is yielding good results for the project.
The following report summaries progress up to Gateway 2 which is a Feasibility study to ensure the scheme is “doable”. i.e. can the brief be meet in terms of time, cost and quality. Prior to reaching this gateway several options for the site have been considered.
The principal design team consultants have been appointed for the project. The architect shall be GT Architects , with WYG providing Multi Discipline Engineering design services. Both parties were chosen through a design competition and are integrating well into the project team. Robertson North of England are currently reviewing and formalising the appointments of the aforementioned parties and identifying all specialist design consultants required to progress the project through to Gateway 5 (Construction).
Presently three sites are being considered by Allerdale Borough Council. A building layout will subsequently be developed to meet the criteria of the brief and will be within the affordability envelope available. A site options evaluation has been commissioned by Allerdale Borough Council in order to assist in the selection of the most appropriate site. The site options evaluation shall be read in conjunction with this Gateway 2 Report.
The planning authority has been consulted by both Robertson North of England and Allerdale Borough Council as have other major stakeholders. A public consultation exercise has also been undertaken in order to determine the preferred site location. All principal surveys have been commissioned and additional / secondary surveys identified within this report.
Key performance Indicators will be set and will be assessed following sign off of this gateway.
The project is progressing to programme and an overall construction budget is to be agreed prior to commencing Gateway 3. The following report is presented for Gateway 2 (RIBA stage 1) sign off and approval by Allerdale Borough Council.
CONTENTS
1.0 Access Agreement Signed
2.0 Issue Project Request
3.0 Site Technical Appraisal
4.0 Value Management Workshop
5.0 Risk Workshop & Risk Register
6.0 Surveys
7.0 Outline Programmes
8.0 Feasibility Report
9.0 RACI Workshop
10.0 Agree Pre-Construction Scope
11.0 Agree Pre-Construction Cost
12.0 Project Order
Appendix A Site Abnormals Matrix
Appendix B Consultation Drawings
Appendix C Pre Construction & Construction Programmes
Appendix D Cost Plan & GIFA Schedule
1.0 Access Agreement Signed
The SCAPE Access Agreement has been signed by Paul Shackley (Corporate Director) of Allerdale Borough Council.
2.0 Issue Project Request
The Project request forms have been agreed and signed, dated 21/08/13 as contained below;
3.0 Site Technical Appraisal
As previously noted Allerdale Borough Council are currently considering three potential sites for the proposed leisure centre. FMG Consulting have undertaken a detailed option appraisal for each site in conjunction with a public consultation; In addition to the above, a project review meeting was undertaken on 16/10/13 with the following organisations present; ñ Robertson North of England ñ Allerdale Borough Council (Planning Department, Environmental Health and Engineering Department) ñ Environment Agency (EA) ñ United Utilities ñ Cumbria County Council Highways Department
The following technical appraisal has been undertaken for the following sites and is based upon the information obtained during the initial surveys and the project review meeting of 16/10/13. A detailed site abnormals matrix has been developed and is contained within Appendix A. ñ Site Option 1 – Brow Top ñ Site Option 2 – Brow Top Car Park ñ Site Option 3 – Moor close (Land adjacent to existing leisure centre)
Brow Top The site is located adjacent to the River Derwent and is accessed via William Street and Griffin Street. The site is located within a level 2 and 3 flood zone and is designated high risk to groundwater flooding. The EA have confirmed that a SUDS system of groundwater drainage is to be utilised in conjunction with storage / attenuation. Soapery Beck is located within the proposed site area and may require diverting or a bridging structure to allow access to site, this will be subject to agreement with the EA. The geotechnical desk top report indicates that the site is within a zone of influence of former mine workings and further intrusive surveys maybe required. The site is predominately flat and is overlain with dense sandy, gravely clay which should allow for pad foundations. The site topography should negate the requirement for retaining structures. Gas monitoring will be required and a gas membrane should be incorporated into the design proposals. The water table will need to be given careful consideration to ensure that pool flotation does not occur when the pool is empty. The water table is indicated as being 1.5 – 2.5m below ground level, whilst not having a significant impact upon the pool design, temporary de watering will be required. Further consideration should be given to the Wardel Armstrong reported dated May 2010 as the impact of mineral deposits below the site need to be fully ascertained. An ecological scoping report has been undertaken and indicates the presence of Himalaya Balsam (Invasive Species), Breeding Birds, Otters and Bats, further detailed surveys are required. An HV cable traverses the site in an East to West direction and will require diverting prior to construction works commencing. Street lighting cables are located around the perimeter of the site and will require diversion / protection prior to construction works commencing. Gas, Water, Electric & BT are presently not available onsite and new supplies will be required to serve the development. United Utilities have confirmed that the existing 1200mm diameter combined sewer that is located within the existing car park & Griffin Street is subject to an 8.0m easement and a building over agreement will not be granted. A detention tank is also located within the existing car park and United Utilities require 24 hour access to the detention tank.
Cumbria County Council Highways Department have confirmed that a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) must be undertaken to ascertain the capacity on the existing road network due to the Tesco store development and the redevelopment of the former Corus site. The results of the TIA may result in a contribution being required to upgrade the existing road network. Further discussions will be required with Cumbria County Council Highways Department to ascertain this requirement. Where possible all existing trees should be retained to minimise ecological impact and to assist with screening the development from the adjacent conservation area. The location of the existing conservation area may impact upon the scaling and massing proposals of the development. The land is owned by Allerdale Borough Council and whilst no restrictive covenants have been identified the site is subject to mineral rights.
Brow Top Car Park The site is located adjacent to the River Derwent and is accessed via William Street and Griffin Street. The site is located within a level 2 flood zone and is designated high risk to groundwater flooding. The EA have confirmed that a SUDS system of groundwater drainage is to be utilised in conjunction with storage / attenuation. Soapery Beck is located within the proposed site area and may require diverting or a bridging structure to allow access to site, this will be subject to agreement with the EA. The geotechnical desk top report indicates that the site is within a zone of influence of former mine workings and further intrusive surveys maybe required. The site is predominately flat and is overlain with dense sandy, gravely clay which should allow for pad foundations. The site topography should negate the requirement for retaining structures. Gas monitoring will be required and a gas membrane should be incorporated into the design proposals. The water table will need to be given careful consideration to ensure that pool flotation does not occur when the pool is empty. The water table is indicated as being 1.5 – 2.5m below ground level, whilst not having a significant impact upon the pool design, temporary de watering will be required. Further consideration should be given to the Wardel Armstrong reported dated May 2010 as the impact of mineral deposits below the site need to be fully ascertained. An ecological scoping report has been undertaken and indicates the presence of Himalaya Balsam (Invasive Species), Breeding Birds, Otters and Bats, further detailed surveys are required. An HV cable traverses the site in an East to West direction and will require diverting prior to construction works commencing. Street lighting cables are located around the perimeter of the site and will require diversion / protection prior to construction works commencing. Gas, Water, Electric & BT are presently not available onsite and new supplies will be required to serve the development. United Utilities have confirmed that the existing 1200mm diameter combined sewer that is located within the existing car park & Griffin Street is subject to an 8.0m easement and a building over agreement will not be granted. A detention tank is also located within the existing car park and United Utilities require 24 hour access to the detention tank. Cumbria County Council Highways Department have confirmed that a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) must be undertaken to ascertain the capacity on the existing road network due to the Tesco store development and the redevelopment of the former Corus site. The results of the TIA may result in a contribution being required to upgrade the existing road network. Further discussions will be required with Cumbria County Council Highways Department to ascertain this requirement.
Where possible all existing trees should be retained to minimise ecological impact and to assist with screening the development from the adjacent conservation area. The location of the existing conservation area may impact upon the scaling and massing proposals of the development.
The land is owned by Allerdale Borough Council and whilst no restrictive covenants have been identified the site is subject to mineral rights.
Both Brow Top and Brow Top car park are located within the Workington Conservation Area and will therefore be subject to a heritage impact assessment. The location of the proposed building footprint should take into account the location of the existing combined sewer, detention tank and Soapery Beck. This may result in the building footprint moving in a Northerly direction, which places the building footprint within the level 3 flood zone. Detailed discussions will be required with the EA to establish the exact location of the building footprint.
Moor Close The site is located adjacent to the existing leisure centre and is accessed via Ashfield Road South. The site is within a level 1 flood zone and is designated low risk to groundwater flooding. The EA have confirmed that a SUDS system of groundwater drainage is to be utilised in conjunction with storage / attenuation. The geotechnical desk top report indicates that the site is within a zone of influence of former mine workings and a number of mine entries / workings are located onsite, although the exact positions are unknown. The location of these mine workings will need to be ascertained and may result in significant remediation works to the site prior to construction works commencing. A geological fault passes below the site and will require a detailed assessment to determine the impact upon the development. The water table will need to be given careful consideration to ensure that pool flotation does not occur when the pool is empty and the use of ground anchors maybe required. The water table depth is to be established and temporary de watering will be required. Like the previous two site options the site is predominately flat and is overlain with dense sandy, gravely clay which should allow the use of pad foundations, however the results of the intrusive site investigation works are currently awaited. The site topography should negate the requirement for retaining structures. An ecological scoping report has been undertaken and indicates the presence of Breeding Birds, Bats, Reptiles and Hedgehogs, further detailed surveys are required. A record of Japanese Knotweed (Invasive species) has also been recorded adjacent to the Southern boundary of the site. An unknown service traverses the site in a South East to North direction and will require diverting prior to construction work commencing. As the site is located adjacent to the existing leisure centre BT, Gas, HV and Water supplies are located within the vicinity. Both Foul and Surface drainage is located adjacent to the site within the existing car park and United Utilities have confirmed there is sufficient capacity within their existing network. Cumbria County Council Highways Department have confirmed that a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) must be undertaken to ascertain the capacity on the existing road network. The site is also adjacent to Southern relief road line, which is a designated safeguarding corridor and should the development encroach into this area an objection will be raised by Cumbria County Council Highways Department. The results of the TIA may result in a contribution being required to upgrade the existing road network. Further discussions will be required with Cumbria County Council Highways Department to ascertain this requirement.
Environmental Health have confirmed that due to the location of the site a contamination assessment, light and noise study will also be required. The location of the proposed 3G pitch is to be reviewed with Environmental Health in order to mitigate objections due to light and noise pollution to the adjacent dwellings.
The land is part owned by Allerdale Borough Council and part by Cumbria County Council and whilst no restrictive covenants have been identified the site is subject to mineral rights.
Design Development As previously advised, concept building positions and Masterplan drawings have been prepared for use during the public consultations, copies of which are contained within Appendix B. The client brief, building location and area requirements are to be developed and refined at the outset of Gateway 3, however in order to ascertain an outline target cost a GIFA has been advised by the Architect based upon similar schemes and can therefore be utilised across all three sites. The outline GIFA is 4389 m2, however this is only for guidance purposes and an accurate GIFA will be developed once the respective site has been chosen by Allerdale Borough Council and the project brief and budget finalised.
Upon completion of the Gateway 2 works and confirmation of the respective site, the design will be developed to RIBA stage 3, this will include Architectural concept layouts, story heights, and elevations, Civil & Structural and M&E concept designs. During this period specialist designers will also be appointed to develop the pool, filtration and ventilation system designs. Prior to commencing Gateway 3 and as identified within the Pre Construction Programme, an initial period will be necessary to finalise the project brief and confirm the following key points, as these will significantly impact upon cost and programme; ñ Is the development to be constructed to Sport England Standard’s ñ Is the development to be constructed to PWTAG (Pool Water Treatment Advisory Group) Standard’s ñ Operational requirements for chemical treatment, washout, pumping and tank locations and maintenance / shutdown requirements ñ Ventilation Strategy During this initial period it is important that both Allerdale Borough Council and Carlisle Leisure are in attendance when the above points are being reviewed.
As the design is developed through the Gateway 3 period a number of consultations and meetings will be undertaken with both the general public and key project stakeholders to review the proposals and to ensure that the potential issues identified within the technical appraisal have been considered and mitigated accordingly. The Pre Construction Programme contained within Appendix C identifies the proposed time line for undertaking the design development and the relevant consultations / meetings noted above. It should be noted that the Pre Construction Programme is presented in draft format and will require reviewing / updating on a weekly basis during Gateways 3 and 4.
4.0 Value Management Workshop Value management is a key component of the Scape process and a value management workshop has been undertaken on 30/09/13 to ascertain what represents value in terms of the project benefits and linking these to cost effective design solutions. During this workshop all parties identified their needs, wants and dependencies which will impact on the project and how each party can add value to the process and manage the risks. Risk management identifies causes of uncertainty and what can jeopardise the project throughout the stages of procurement, design, construction and operational delivery and then allowing all parties to develop activities that will minimise any adverse impact on the project. Effective value management and risk management complement each other as value management can reduce risk and risk management can increase value.
Value Management During each design team meeting the scheme will be appraised for value. The area schedule, building form, position and build ability are to be reviewed against function and use to ensure best value. A site option and technical appraisal is currently being undertaken to evaluate the most advantageous site for the development.
Risk Management An initial risk register will be developed for the project upon the commencement of Gateway 3, with actions identified to minimise the risk moving forward. This risk register will be costed, with the costs identified within the project cost plan. The risk register is to be reviewed during the design team meetings and specific risk reduction works shops as identified within the Preconstruction Programme.
Local Spend A key feature of the Scape 3 framework is to ensure local suppliers and contractors are used in the construction of the new building. Robertson North of England in conjunction with Allerdale Borough Council have commenced the development of a local supply chain in place for the project based upon local knowledge and recently completed projects within the area.
Budget Allerdale Borough Council have advised that a total Capital Cost of circa £9.5M has been established for the project. A high level cost plan has been developed for this report by utilising a outline GIFA of 4389m2 as previously advised by the Architect and by utilising the elemental cost data contained within “Affordable Sports Centres” published by Sports England. Our high level cost plan for the development is contained within Appendix D.
Form of Contract The Scape procurement route advocates the use of NEC3 form of contract with option A or option C being available. For the redevelopment of Workington Leisure Centre we propose that the project is delivered utilising NEC 3 form of contract, option A. By utilising option A, we are able to provide a lump sum, Design and Build contract which minimises the risk exposure to Allerdale Borough Council, as the risk register and expenditure of risk monies is controlled by Robertson North of England. Whilst this option minimises the risk to Allerdale Borough Council, there remains certain risks which will require to be owned and managed by Allerdale Borough Council.
5.0 Risk Workshop and Risk Register As indicated within 4.0 an initial risk register will be developed for the project, this will be based upon the technical information obtained during the initial surveys and following the project review meetings of 30/09/13 and 16/10/13 respectively. Throughout the Pre Construction phase a number of risk reduction workshops will be held and the risk register will be updated accordingly. All parties and relevant stakeholders will attend the risk reduction workshops with each party being responsible for the management / mitigation of their assigned risks. The proposed dates for the risk reduction workshops are indicated within the Pre Construction Programme, a copy of which is contained within Appendix C.
6.0 Surveys Presently a number of initial surveys have been undertaken in order to develop this technical appraisal report, these being; ñ Geotechnical desk top surveys ñ Intrusive site investigation (Moor close only) ñ Review of historic SI data from Allerdale Borough Council in relation to Brow Top ñ Flood Risk Assessment ñ Topographic surveys ñ Utility surveys ñ Ecological scoping survey The information contained within the above surveys has been utilised to develop the site abnormals matrix which is contained within Appendix A. Copies of the above surveys have been issued to the design team and Allerdale Borough Council.
Additional Surveys The above surveys and subsequent site abnormals matrix confirm that a number of additional surveys are required in order to develop the design and comply with the requirements of the Planning Authority, these being; ñ Intrusive site investigation (Brow Top / Brow Top Car Park). The initial SI information provided by Allerdale Borough Council, dated 2005 is incomplete and is unwarranted. The results and conclusion section of the factual report is missing and makes no reference to the mineral issues onsite. ñ Traffic Impact Assessment (The scope of the TIA is to be agreed with Cumbria County Council) ñ A number of specialist ecological surveys are required, these include Breeding Birds, Bats, Otters, Reptiles and Biodiversity 2020 species. ñ Habitat Regulation Assessment to be undertaken by Allerdale Borough Council ñ Heritage Impact Assessment ñ Environmental Impact Assessment ñ Noise Impact Assessment ñ Light Pollution Survey (Moor Close only) ñ Coal Mining Risk Assessment (Moor Close only due to mine entries / mine workings) ñ Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment Costs for the above surveys have been included within the cost plan. Where we have been unable to obtain a fee proposal a budget allowance has been made based upon experience and current market rates. Where a budget allowance has been made this is clearly indicated within the cost plan. Detailed fee proposals for all of the above surveys will be obtained and presented to Allerdale Borough Council for approval during Gateway 3.
Statutory Consultations Initial discussions have been held with the local Planning Authority on 30/09/13 and 16/10/13 respectively. Subsequent correspondence has confirmed the minimum additional surveys required for a planning submission, details of which are included above. The local Planning Authority have also confirmed that the following consultees / stakeholders will be required to be consulted during the planning process; ñ Natural England ñ Workington Civic Trust ñ Cumbria Wildlife ñ Highways & Engineering (Allerdale Borough Council) ñ Cumbria County Council Highways ñ Environmental Health (Allerdale Borough Council) ñ Cumbria Fire & Rescue ñ Cumbria Police ñ Environmental Agency ñ Sport England ñ Carlisle Leisure As identified within 3.0 (Site Technical Appraisal) a review meeting was undertaken on 16/10/13 to discuss the planning process, to engage with the key project stakeholders and to commence the collation of all supporting information to allow for a full planning application to be made. The Pre Construction Programme indicates that a planning application will be made in February 2014 with approval scheduled for May 2014.
7.0 Outline Programme A Pre Construction Programme has been developed following discussions with Allerdale Borough Council, the local planning authority, key project stakeholders and the design team. The Pre Construction Programme indicates a duration of 42 weeks, spanning from 30/09/13 to 21/07/14. Furthermore the Pre Construction Programme identifies the tasks required to achieve Gateway 4 approval and commence construction works. Included within this timeline is the following key milestones; ñ Issue Gateway 2 Report 28/10/13 ñ Commence Gateway 3 11/11/13 ñ Submit Planning Application 17/02/14 ñ Planning Permission Obtained 20/05/14 ñ Commence Gateway 4 17/02/14 ñ Sign Project Delivery Agreement 23/06/14 ñ Submit Gateway 4 Report 23/06/14 ñ Commence Onsite 21/07/14 In addition to the above key milestones, we recommend that an enabling works package is undertaken during the Pre Construction phase. The enabling works package will include the diversion and /or protection of any existing services, diversion of existing water courses, ground remediation and the installation of any bridging structures prior to the main construction works commencing. The extent of the enabling works package is to be agreed with Allerdale Borough Council during Gateway 3. By undertaking the enabling works during the Pre Construction phase, Robertson North of England are able to de risk the construction phase and provide a reduced construction programme period.
In addition to the development of the Pre Construction Programme, a Construction Programme has also been prepared. The Construction Programme is indicative and identifies the proposed construction time line for leisure centre development. Presently we believe that a construction period of 70 weeks will be required to complete the development with works commencing in July 2014 and being complete by November 2015. The Construction Programme will be further developed with Allerdale Borough Council, the design team and the supply chain as the project develops through to Gateway 5. Copies of the Pre Construction and Construction Programme are contained within Appendix C.
8.0 Feasibility Report Having completed our initial review of the survey information, the outcome of the initial planning meetings and the information contained within the FMG site appraisal report, Robertson North of England confirm that there are no technical or operational reasons as to why the three sites under consideration are not feasible, however additional costs will be realised for each site. The following observations have been made and should be taken into consideration when making the final decision as to which site is the most suitable for the new leisure centre.
Site Option 1 – Brow Top Additional costs are associated with this site due to the following; ñ Removal of invasive species (Himalayan Balsam) ñ Provision of otter proof fencing ñ Provision of SUDS / Attenuation systems ñ Diversion of HV / Street lighting cables ñ Diversion of Soapery Beck / Bridging Structure to Soapery Beck ñ Gas Protection ñ Mineral deposits to be ascertained ñ Potential of temporary de watering ñ Diversion of existing United Utilities combined sewer ñ Provision of new incoming BT, Water, Gas & Electric to site (subject to network availability) ñ Upgrading of existing access road (Subject to TIA)
Site Option 2 – Brow Top Car Park Additional costs are associated with this site due to the following; ñ Removal of invasive species (Himalayan Balsam) ñ Provision of otter proof fencing ñ Provision of SUDS / Attenuation systems ñ Diversion of HV / Street lighting cables ñ Diversion of Soapery Beck / Bridging Structure to Soapery Beck ñ Gas Protection ñ Mineral deposits to be ascertained ñ Potential of temporary de watering ñ Diversion of existing United Utilities combined sewer ñ Provision of new incoming BT, Water, Gas & Electric to site (subject to network availability) ñ Upgrading of existing access road (subject to TIA)
Site Option 3 – Moor Close Additional costs are associated with this site due to the following; ñ Capping of existing mine shafts and mine workings (Quantity and locations currently unknown) ñ Investigation of Geological fault ñ Contamination testing ñ Installation of ground anchors to prevent pool floatation ñ Potential pumping station for drainage and pool emptying ñ Removal / diversion of unknown services ñ Increased drainage due to location of existing infrastructure ñ Provision of SUDS / Attenuation systems ñ Potential noise suppression / Alternative lighting solutions due to proximity of existing dwellings ñ Extending existing BT, Water, Gas & Electric to site (Subject to network availability) ñ Upgrading / relocation of access road to avoid South Relief Road Line (Subject to TIA)
Taking into consideration the above points, the discussions with the Allerdale Borough Council, local planning authority and key project stakeholders, we believe that site option 1 (Brow Top) represents the least risk in relation to unknown ground conditions and will incur less additional costs due to the level of abnormals associated with the site. Furthermore option 1 will allow for future expansion of the development due to the adjacency of Brow Top car park (Option 2). Whilst option 2 has similar issues to option 1 the location of this site will make any future expansion difficult due to the proximity of Griffin Street car park, Soapery Beck and Allerdale House. Option 3 (Moor Close) represents significant risk due to the high levels of mine workings and the geological fault that is present onsite. In addition, the potential restriction of the Southern relief road line may make future expansion prohibitive. Whilst a number of issues have been identified for all three site options, these can be managed through the Pre Construction phase and a cost allowance has been made within the cost plan.
Based upon the information contained within this report we suggest that a figure of approximately £9.30M is taken forward as a Gateway 2 budget for the project and that site option 1 (Brow Top) should be selected as the preferred site for the development.
It should be noted that this is a high level budget and further discussions will be required with Allerdale Borough Council to finalise the client brief, the affordability envelope and risk allowance for the project. Furthermore detailed discussions will be required with key project stakeholders such as Environment Agency, United Utilities and Cumbria County Council Highways Department to mitigate the risks identified.
9.0 RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) Workshop The project delivery structure and relevant roles & responsibility was discussed with Allerdale Borough Council and the wider project team on 30/09/13. Further discussions are required to finalise the reporting structure and relevant roles and responsibilities upon the appointment of a Project Manager and Cost Consultant by Allerdale Borough Council. Once the appointments have been formalised the RACI matrix will be completed and circulated to all parties in conjunction with a project delivery structure. Coupled with the completion of the RACI matrix and project delivery structure is the formation of a project core team and a project leadership team. It was agreed that the project leadership team will include senior staff from the client, contractor and design team. The actual members of the core team and project leadership team are to be agreed prior to Gateway 3 commencing. It should be noted that specific roles and responsibilities for the principal contractor (Robertson North of England), design team, project manager and cost consultant are contained within their respective appointment documents.
10.0 Agree Preconstruction Scope The Pre Construction scope is contained within schedule 9 of the Scape Framework Agreement, with specific requirements identified within the draft Pre Construction Programme which is to be agreed with Allerdale Borough Council prior to Gateway 3 commencing.
11.0 Agree Preconstruction Cost A high level cost plan has been prepared and is included within Appendix D. Presently the cost plan has been based upon the notional GIFA and rate /m2 as identified within 4.0. The cost plan will be developed in conjunction with the design and will include all necessary fees, abnormals and risks associated with the selected site. Coupled with the development of our cost plan is the identification of our Pre Construction costs, schedule of design fees and confirmation of all necessary surveys required to develop the design through to Gateway 5.
12.0 Project Order The Project Order forms are in principal agreed and will be signed upon completion of this gateway.
Appendix A
Site Abnormals Matrix
Workington Leisure Centre - Site Abnormals Matrix Rev A - 17/10/13
Geotechnical Desk Study Ground Water Flood Risk Water Courses Intrusive Site Investigation Mining, Coal Seams & Ground Gas Weak or Made Ground Noise Site Topography Archaeology Contamination Minerals Proposed Site Brow Top Site is adjacent to River Site is located within a level Soapery Beck is located SI Report dated 2005 by AEG Site is within a zone of No ground gas highlighted No made ground Noise assessment required Site is predomitaley flat Site is within Workington No contamination Derwent. 2005 Borehole logs 3 flood zone, full FRA within site boundary and is inconclusive and a number influence from existing within desktop study, identified, however records to comply with BREEAM and has a cross fall of Conservation area, highlighted within desktop indicate groundwater level of required. Site is will require diversion. of sections are missing, no mine workings, however awaiting full intrusive SI indicate landslips have and Planning aprox 0.5m Heritage Impact Statement study, full intrusive aprox 2.60m designated High Risk to Input from EA required, no warranty provided, a full these were last worked in report to confirm if occurred and geological required required to confirm if groundwater flooding. EA culverts will be permitted intrusive SI is required. 2005 1900. No shafts or contamination is present faults have occurred within contamination is present require SUDS & Borehole logs indicate dense entrances recorded on site. 500m of the site boundary Attenuation to be utilised sandy, clayey gravel Report by Wardell Armstrong (2010) identifies mineral deposits within the site boundary
Brow Top Car Park Included within above Included within above Included within above Included within above Included within above Included within above Included within above Noise assessment required Site is predomitaley flat Site is within Workington Included within above commentary commentary commentary commentary commentary commentary commentary to comply with BREEAM and has a cross fall of Conservation area, commentary and Planning aprox 0.5m Heritage Impact Statement required
Moor close Await intrusive SI Report Site is located within a level Eller Beck is located within Await intrusive SI Report Site is within a zone of No ground gas highlighted No made ground Noise assessment required Site is predomitaley flat No Archaeological issues Contamination highlighted 1 flood zone, full FRA 250m of the development influence from existing within desktop study, full identified, however records to comply with BREEAM and has a cross fall of identified within desktop study, required. Site is but is outwith the mine workings, however intrusive required to indicate geological faults and Planning aprox 0.5m awaiting full intrusive SI designated low Risk to proposed development these were last worked in confirm if contamination is have occurred within 500m results to confirm levels of groundwater flooding. EA zone 1900. A of number mine present of the site boundary contamination present require SUDS & entries / workings are onsite Attenuation to be utilised located within the site boundary, a mine entry interpretative report is required from the Coal Authority
Ecological Scoping Survey Invasive Species Trees, Flora & Fauna SSSI Breeding Birds Bats Badgers Otters EIA Other Species Other Considerations Proposed Site Brow Top Himalaya Balsam is present No protected flora or No SSSI's within The development will impact Potential for Bats onsite, Presence of Badgers The development will Environmental Impact Development will not Habitats Regulation onsite, eradication species of conservation development area and no upon breeding birds, nesting Bat survey to be consider low, no further impact upon otters within Assessment required prior impact on Red Squirrels, Assessment to be programme to be undertaken concern recorded onsite. protected landscape survey required to be undertaken surveys required the locality, a further otter to submitting planning Water Voles, Reptiles, undertaken by Allerdale No additional surveys identified undertaken survey is required and application Amphibians, White Clawed Borough Council. required. precautions, such as otter Crayfish and invertebrates, Protection measures to be proof fencing is to be no further surveys required put in place during implemented during construction works to construction works prevent pollution to River Derwent and Soapery Beck
Brow Top Car Park Himalaya Balsam is present No protected flora or No SSSI's within The development will impact Potential for Bats onsite, Not identified within The development will Environmental Impact Development will not Habitats Regulation onsite, eradication species of conservation development area and no upon breeding birds, nesting Bat survey to be Scoping Survey impact upon otters within Assessment required prior impact on Red Squirrels, Assessment to be programme to be undertaken concern recorded onsite. protected landscape survey required to be undertaken the locality, a further otter to submitting planning Water Voles, Reptiles, undertaken by Allerdale No additional surveys identified undertaken survey is required and application Amphibians, White Clawed Borough Council. required. precautions, such as otter Crayfish and invertebrates, Protection measures to be proof fencing is to be no further surveys required put in place during implemented during construction works to construction works prevent pollution to River Derwent and Soapery Beck
Moor close A record of Japanese No protected flora or No SSSI's within The development will impact Potential for Bats onsite, Presence of Badgers Not identified within Environmental Impact Site has potential for Site may also support other Knotweed has been noted species of conservation development area and no upon breeding birds, nesting Bat survey to be consider low, no further Scoping Survey Assessment required prior Reptiles and therefore a Biodiversity 2020 species adjacent to the Southern concern recorded onsite. protected landscape survey required to be undertaken surveys required to submitting planning Reptile survey is required. such as hedgehogs, Boundary, no invasive species No additional surveys identified undertaken application Development will not clearance works to be recorded onsite required. impact upon Red Squirrels, undertaken in an approved Amphibians and manner Invertebrates, no further surveys required
Utilities & Infrastructure Site Access & Transportation Site Utilities Highways Drainage Overhead Services Existing Structures & Features Proposed Site Brow Top Site is accessed via Derwent HV cable crosses the site Detailed TIA required to Existing combined sewer None identified, however a No existing structures Street and Murray Road, (East to West) and will ascertain impact on system within Griffins Street number of street lights are onsite, existing bowling access road is of tarmac require diversion / existing road network. & car park is subject to 8m within the development green and pavilion located construction and leads to an protection. Street lighting Potential contribution easement. United Utilities area to Northern boundary of existing tarmac car park cable located on West, required for upgrade confirm that no building over site South and East boundaries works, detailed discussions agreements will be issued. will require diversion / are required with Cumbria Draiange may require protection. No Gas, BT or County Council protection prio to works Water identified via survey commencing
Brow Top Car Park Site is accessed via Derwent HV cable crosses the site Detailed TIA required to No S/W drainage onsite. F/W None identified, however a No existing structures Street and Murray Road, (East to West) and will ascertain impact on drainage located within number of street lights are onsite access road is of tarmac require diversion / existing road network. Derwent Street and Brow Top within the development construction and leads to an protection. No Gas, BT or Potential contribution area existing tarmac car park Water identified via survey required for upgrade works, detailed discussions are required with Cumbria County Council
Moor close Site is accessed via Ashfield Unknown services crosses Site is adjacent to Southern No F/W drainage onsite, None identified, however a No existing structures Road South, access road is of the site (South East - Relief Road Line (Safe drainage connection is within number of street lights are onsite, site is located tarmac construction North), this may require Guarding Corridor), no existing car park. S/W within the development adjacent to existing leisure diversion / protection. BT, devlopment to take place drainage located with South area centre car park HV and Water main are adjacent to this area West & South East located within existing car boundaries park, no gas identified via survey
Legal Land Ownership & RLB Rights of Way Covenants Party Wall Over sailing Wayleaves Proposed Site Brow Top Land is owned by Allerdale Rights of way consultation Mineral rights to be N/A N/A T.B.A but probably in place Borough Council, further required, Title disclosure confirmed, no restrictive for HV Cable information required in report required covenants identified relation to Red Line Boundary
Brow Top Car Park Land is owned by Allerdale Non identified, Title Mineral rights to be N/A N/A T.B.A but probably in place Borough Council, further disclosure report required confirmed, no restrictive for HV Cable information required in covenants identified relation to Red Line Boundary
Moor close Site is part owned by Allerdale Non identified, Title Mineral rights to be N/A N/A N/A Borough Council and Cumbria disclosure report required confirmed, no restrictive County Council, further covenants identified information required in relation to RLB. Cumbria County Council to confirm location of Southern Relief Road line
Appendix B
Consultation Drawings
gowdridge thomason architects \ FIIllITIES
LEISURE CENTRE ) 25m x 8 lane pool / Learner I teaching pool Pool spectator seating
Health suite (sauna I steam I jacuzzi)
Wet changing area
4 court sports hall
Climbing wall llllTllN PliN Fitness suite (100 stations) 2 studios: flexible use
Spinning studio
2 squash courts
Soft play area Cricket Ground Dry change (separate sports hall and fitness suite changing)
Changing rooms (linked to outdoor PIll Hill sports pitches) Cafe
Kitchen
Administration office
EXTERNAL
Full size 3G football pitch
100 car park spaces
SPIRTS Hill Sk.etch perspective of public route to fown cenlte (Please note - ALL IMAGES ARE INDICA TIVE) ... <
N
o 00 100 I~ I FITNESSIY. PRIPISED lEISURE IEITRE : IRIUID FlOIR Plil We ' I ~ ora no A. EITERIIR gowdridge thomason architects \ FIClliTIES
LEISURE CENTRE
25m x 8 lane pool
Learner I teaching pool
Pool spectator seating
Health suite (sauna I steam I jacuzzi)
. '-~,,:==.L.~ Wet changing area 4 court sports hall
Climbing wall
River Derwent Fitness suite (100 stations) lOCITION Plil 2 studios: flexible use
Spinning studio
2 squash courts
Soft play area
Cricket Ground Dry change (separate sports hall and fitness suite changing)
Changing rooms (linked to outdoor sports pitches) POOl Hill Cafe Kitchen
Administration office
EXTERNAL
Full size 3G football pitch
100 car park spaces
FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT SPORTS Hill CENTRE (FEC) Dramatic atrium space linking Brow Top to recreation space below
Restaurants & cafes
Multi screen cinema
Possible 10 pin bowls and potential for leisure related retail
A new public square
o "0 100 FITNESS IYM PROPOSEllEISIRE CENTRE: IROINI FlOOR Pili ...... I EITERIOR , (Please nole • ALL IMAGES ARE INDICATIVE) op-nO"/ ~~ Site Location Ariel Photo - Brow Top gowdridge thomason architects FICILITIES
LEISURE CENTRE
25m x 8 lane pool
Learner I teaching pool
Pool spectator seating
Health suite (sauna I steam I jacuzzi)
Wet changing area
4 court sports hall
Climbing wall LOCITIOI Plil Fitness suite (100 stations) 2 studios: flexible use
Spinning studio
2 squash courts
Soft play area
Dry change (separate sports hall and fitness suite changing)
Changing rooms (linked to outdoor sports pitches)
POOL HILL Cafe
Kitchen
Administration office PROPOSED LEISURE CENTRE EXTERNAL
Full size 3G football pitch
100 car park spaces SPORTS HILL (Please note - ALL IMAGES ARE INDICATIVE)
& ~o ' 00 FITNESS IYI PROPOSED LEISURE CEITRE : IROUID FLIIR Plil hw .... I EITERIIR \
Site I_ocalont ' Ar'lel Photo - Moorclose Workington
Appendix C
Pre Construction & Construction Programmes
Pre Construction Programme
Allerdale Borough Council
2013 2014 September October November December January February March April May June July August September Line Name Duration Start Finish 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
1 Pre Construction Phase 42w 1d 09/09/2013 21/07/2014 1 Pre Construction Phase
2 Gateway 2 Works 11w 09/09/2013 25/11/2013 2 Gateway 2 Works 3 Pre Commencement Workshop 1d 30/09/2013 30/09/2013 3 Pre Commencement Workshop
4 Establish Project Core Team 1w 4d 01/10/2013 11/10/2013 4 Establish Project Core Team 10d 10d 5 Core Group Meetings 14/10/2013 11/11/2013 5 Core Group Meetings
6 Appoint PQS & Project Manager 1w 4d 01/10/2013 11/10/2013 6 Appoint PQS & Project Manager
7 Obtain Fee Proposals for Design Team 1w 3d 23/09/2013 02/10/2013 7 Obtain Fee Proposals for Design Team
8 Appoint Design Team (Inc Scope of Services & DRM) 1w 3d 03/10/2013 14/10/2013 8 Appoint Design Team (Inc Scope of Services & DRM)
9 Undertake Pre Commencement Surveys (SI, Utilities, Topo & FRA) 4w 09/09/2013 04/10/2013 9 Undertake Pre Commencement Surveys (SI, Utilities, Topo & FRA)
10 Develop Site Abnormals Matrix 1w 03/10/2013 09/10/2013 10 Develop Site Abnormals Matrix
11 Identify Abnormals Costs 3d 10/10/2013 14/10/2013 11 Identify Abnormals Costs
12 Identify Additional Surveys 2d 07/10/2013 08/10/2013 12 Identify Additional Surveys
13 Undertake Key Stakeholder Meetings 2d 14/10/2013 18/10/2013 13 Undertake Key Stakeholder Meetings
14 Prepare Techical Appraisal Report 3w 07/10/2013 25/10/2013 14 Prepare Techical Appraisal Report
15 Prepare High Level Cost Plan (Rate /m2) 1w 14/10/2013 18/10/2013 15 Prepare High Level Cost Plan (Rate /m2)
16 Identify Pre Construction Costs 1w 17/10/2013 23/10/2013 16 Identify Pre Construction Costs
17 Initial Risk Reduction Workshop 1d 21/10/2013 21/10/2013 17 Initial Risk Reduction Workshop
18 Develop Costed Risk Register 1w 3d 14/10/2013 23/10/2013 18 Develop Costed Risk Register
19 Develop Pre Construction Programme 3d 07/10/2013 09/10/2013 19 Develop Pre Construction Programme
20 Develop High Level Construction Programme 4d 10/10/2013 15/10/2013 20 Develop High Level Construction Programme
21 Submit Technical Appraisal Report to Allerdale Borough Council 28/10/2013 28/10/2013 21 Submit Technical Appraisal Report to Allerdale Borough Council
22 Business Case Preparation & Submission 2w 2d 28/10/2013 12/11/2013 22 Business Case Preparation & Submission
23 Executive Council Meeting 13/11/2013 13/11/2013 23 Executive Council Meeting
24 Internal Council Reporting Period 1w 3d 13/11/2013 22/11/2013 24 Internal Council Reporting Period
25 Project Confirmation Issued 25/11/2013 25/11/2013 25 Project Confirmation Issued
26 Gateway 3 Works 25w 11/11/2013 22/05/2014 26 Gateway 3 Works 27 Develop Client Brief for Chosen Site (At Risk) 2w 11/11/2013 22/11/2013 27 Develop Client Brief for Chosen Site (At Risk) Agreement of PWTAG, Ventilation, Operational Issues and Sport England 28 1w 18/11/2013 22/11/2013 28 Agreement of PWTAG, Ventilation, Operational Issues and Sport England Strategies Strategies 20d 20d 29 Client Workshops 2d 18/11/2013 27/01/2014 29 Client Workshops
30 Finalise Client Brief 1w 25/11/2013 29/11/2013 30 Finalise Client Brief
31 Procure Additional Surveys 2w 3d 13/11/2013 29/11/2013 31 Procure Additional Surveys
32 Identification of Enabling Works Package 2w 25/11/2013 06/12/2013 32 Identification of Enabling Works Package
33 Architectural Concept Design - RIBA Stage 2 3w 02/12/2013 20/12/2013 33 Architectural Concept Design - RIBA Stage 2
34 Civil & Structural Concept Design 2w 09/12/2013 20/12/2013 34 Civil & Structural Concept Design
35 M&E Concept Design 2w 09/12/2013 20/12/2013 35 M&E Concept Design 10d 11d 9d 10d 36 Design Team Meetings 25/11/2013 03/02/2014 36 Design Team Meetings
37 Cost Plan Development 3w 09/12/2013 10/01/2014 37 Cost Plan Development
38 Design Review & Feedback 1w 06/01/2014 10/01/2014 38 Design Review & Feedback
39 Appoint Specialist Design Consultants 4w 25/11/2013 20/12/2013 39 Appoint Specialist Design Consultants
40 Architectural Design Development - RIBA Stage 3 4w 06/01/2014 31/01/2014 40 Architectural Design Development - RIBA Stage 3
41 Civil & Structural Design Development 3w 13/01/2014 31/01/2014 41 Civil & Structural Design Development
42 M&E Design Development 3w 13/01/2014 31/01/2014 42 M&E Design Development
43 Cost Plan Review & Update 3w 13/01/2014 31/01/2014 43 Cost Plan Review & Update
44 Review & Feedback 1w 03/02/2014 07/02/2014 44 Review & Feedback
45 Finalise Outline Architectural Design 2w 03/02/2014 14/02/2014 45 Finalise Outline Architectural Design
46 Finalise Outline Civil & Structural Design 2w 03/02/2014 14/02/2014 46 Finalise Outline Civil & Structural Design
47 Finalise Outline M&E Design 2w 03/02/2014 14/02/2014 47 Finalise Outline M&E Design
48 Design Freeze 03/02/2014 03/02/2014 48 Design Freeze
49 Finalise Gateway 3 Cost Plan 2w 03/02/2014 14/02/2014 49 Finalise Gateway 3 Cost Plan
50 Prepare Gateway 3 Report 6w 06/01/2014 14/02/2014 50 Prepare Gateway 3 Report
51 Submit Gateway 3 Report 17/02/2014 17/02/2014 51 Submit Gateway 3 Report 20d 20d 52 Risk Reduction Workshops 02/12/2013 10/02/2014 52 Risk Reduction Workshops
53 Update Risk Register 7w 02/12/2013 14/02/2014 53 Update Risk Register
54 Appoint BREEAM Assessor 2w 25/11/2013 06/12/2013 54 Appoint BREEAM Assessor
55 Undertake BREEAM Pre Assessment 1w 06/01/2014 10/01/2014 55 Undertake BREEAM Pre Assessment
56 BREEAM Workshop 1d 21/01/2014 21/01/2014 56 BREEAM Workshop
57 Undertake Utility Appraisal 2w 06/01/2014 17/01/2014 57 Undertake Utility Appraisal 13d 13d 58 Community Engagement & Stakeholder Consultation 1w 1d 09/12/2013 04/02/2014 58 Community Engagement & Stakeholder Consultation
59 Prepare Planning Application & Supporting Documentation 6w 06/01/2014 14/02/2014 59 Prepare Planning Application & Supporting Documentation
60 Submit Full Planning Application 17/02/2014 17/02/2014 60 Submit Full Planning Application
61 Determination Period 12w 3d 17/02/2014 19/05/2014 61 Determination Period
62 Planning Committee Meeting 20/05/2014 20/05/2014 62 Planning Committee Meeting
63 Full Planning Approval Obtained 20/05/2014 20/05/2014 63 Full Planning Approval Obtained
64 Submit Building Regulation Approval Pack 24/03/2014 24/03/2014 64 Submit Building Regulation Approval Pack
65 Building Regulation Determination Period 8w 24/03/2014 21/05/2014 65 Building Regulation Determination Period
66 Building Regulation Approval 22/05/2014 22/05/2014 66 Building Regulation Approval
67 Gateway 4 Works 29w 1d 09/12/2013 21/07/2014 67 Gateway 4 Works 20d 19d 23d 68 Client Workshops 24/02/2014 27/05/2014 68 Client Workshops
69 Develop Detailed Architectural Design Layouts - RIBA Stage 4 14w 17/02/2014 29/05/2014 69 Develop Detailed Architectural Design Layouts - RIBA Stage 4
70 Develop RDS, FF&E Schedules and RDD Schedules 9w 31/03/2014 05/06/2014 70 Develop RDS, FF&E Schedules and RDD Schedules 15d 14d 17d 9d 71 End User Consultations 2w 06/03/2014 05/06/2014 71 End User Consultations
72 End User Sign Off 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 72 End User Sign Off
73 Prepare Detailed Specifications 7w 14/04/2014 05/06/2014 73 Prepare Detailed Specifications
74 Develop Detailed Civil & Structural Design Layouts 12w 03/03/2014 29/05/2014 74 Develop Detailed Civil & Structural Design Layouts
75 Develop Detailed M&E Design Layouts 15w 03/03/2014 19/06/2014 75 Develop Detailed M&E Design Layouts
76 Develop Specialist Design (Inc Utilities) 15w 03/03/2014 19/06/2014 76 Develop Specialist Design (Inc Utilities) 10d 15d 9d 9d 9d 9d 10d 77 Design Team Meetings 03/03/2014 16/06/2014 77 Design Team Meetings
78 Prepare B of Q's & Tender Packages 4w 24/03/2014 22/04/2014 78 Prepare B of Q's & Tender Packages
79 Market Test Tender Packages 4w 07/04/2014 07/05/2014 79 Market Test Tender Packages
80 Internal Cost Review 2w 06/05/2014 19/05/2014 80 Internal Cost Review
81 Finalise Cost Plan, Prelims & Target Cost 3w 4d 19/05/2014 13/06/2014 81 Finalise Cost Plan, Prelims & Target Cost
82 Internal Cost Review 3d 16/06/2014 18/06/2014 82 Internal Cost Review
83 Main Board Cost Review 2d 19/06/2014 20/06/2014 83 Main Board Cost Review
84 Submit Target Cost 23/06/2014 23/06/2014 84 Submit Target Cost
85 Develop Contractors Proposals 12w 1d 24/03/2014 20/06/2014 85 Develop Contractors Proposals
86 Prepare Gateway 4 Report 8w 24/04/2014 20/06/2014 86 Prepare Gateway 4 Report 17d 23d 18d 87 Risk Reduction Workshops 4d 19/03/2014 18/06/2014 87 Risk Reduction Workshops
88 Finalise Risk Register 9w 1d 14/04/2014 20/06/2014 88 Finalise Risk Register
89 Submit Gateway 4 Report 23/06/2014 23/06/2014 89 Submit Gateway 4 Report
90 Develop Contract Documentation 14w 1d 17/02/2014 30/05/2014 90 Develop Contract Documentation
91 Agree Contracts & Delivery Agreement 02/06/2014 02/06/2014 91 Agree Contracts & Delivery Agreement
92 Agreement of Enabling Works Package 12w 09/12/2013 14/03/2014 92 Agreement of Enabling Works Package
93 Instruction to Proceed - Enabling Works 17/03/2014 17/03/2014 93 Instruction to Proceed - Enabling Works
94 Sign Delivery Agreement 23/06/2014 23/06/2014 94 Sign Delivery Agreement
95 Utility Applications 4w 23/06/2014 18/07/2014 95 Utility Applications
96 Finalise Construction Programme 3w 3d 20/05/2014 13/06/2014 96 Finalise Construction Programme
97 Submit F10 16/06/2014 16/06/2014 97 Submit F10
98 Prepare Site Logistics and Phasing Plans 3w 3d 20/05/2014 13/06/2014 98 Prepare Site Logistics and Phasing Plans
99 Prepare Construction Phase H&S Plan 2w 16/06/2014 27/06/2014 99 Prepare Construction Phase H&S Plan
100 Issue Construction Phase H&S Plant to CDMC 30/06/2014 30/06/2014 100 Issue Construction Phase H&S Plant to CDMC
101 CDMC Approval Period 1w 30/06/2014 04/07/2014 101 CDMC Approval Period
102 Construction Phase H&S Plan Approved 07/07/2014 07/07/2014 102 Construction Phase H&S Plan Approved
103 Mobilisation Period 4w 23/06/2014 18/07/2014 103 Mobilisation Period
104 Commence onsite 21/07/2014 21/07/2014 104 Commence onsite
105 Enabling Works 17w 1d 17/03/2014 18/07/2014 105 Enabling Works 106 Diversion Works to Soapery Beck 8w 17/03/2014 14/05/2014 106 Diversion Works to Soapery Beck
107 Diversion of Existing HV Cable / Utilities 8w 24/04/2014 20/06/2014 107 Diversion of Existing HV Cable / Utilities
108 Protection Works to Existing United Utilities Sewer / Detention Tank 6w 09/05/2014 20/06/2014 108 Protection Works to Existing United Utilities Sewer / Detention Tank
109 Realign Carriageway to Griffin Street/ Form Site Entrance 4w 23/06/2014 18/07/2014 109 Realign Carriageway to Griffin Street/ Form Site Entrance
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 Line Name Duration Start Finish September October November December January February March April May June July August September 2013 2014 Key Scape Allerdale Council Robertson Design Team
Prog No: Revision: C Drawn by: Chris Price Original Issue:04/10/2013 Comment: For Inclusion Within Gateway 2 Report Project Manager: Revision Date: 24/10/2013 Indicative Construction Programme
Draft Programme
2014 2015 16 June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December J Line Name Duration Start 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
1 Mobilisation 4w 23/06/2014 1 Mobilisation
2 Sign Delivery Agreement 23/06/2014 2 Sign Delivery Agreement 3 Mobilisation Period 4w 23/06/2014 3 Mobilisation Period 4 Commence Onsite 21/07/2014 4 Commence Onsite
5 Gateway 5 - Construction Works 66w 4d 21/07/2014 5 Gateway 5 - Construction Works
6 Site Set Up Works 1w 3d 21/07/2014 6 Site Set Up Works 7 Erect Perimeter Fencing 1w 21/07/2014 7 Erect Perimeter Fencing
8 Prepare Site Compound & Install Site Accommodation 1w 24/07/2014 8 Prepare Site Compound & Install Site Accommodation
9 Substructure 21w 1d 31/07/2014 9 Substructure 10 Reduced Level Excavation 2w 31/07/2014 10 Reduced Level Excavation 11 Excavate Basement & Pool 1w 11/08/2014 11 Excavate Basement & Pool 12 Under Slab Drainage to Basement & Pool 1w 1d 15/08/2014 12 Under Slab Drainage to Basement & Pool 13 Gas Membrane & Tanking to Basement & Pool 1w 20/08/2014 13 Gas Membrane & Tanking to Basement & Pool 14 RC Base & Walls to Basement and Pool 13w 2d 20/08/2014 14 RC Base & Walls to Basement and Pool 15 Fill Pool 1w 24/11/2014 15 Fill Pool 16 Water Test Pool 1w 01/12/2014 16 Water Test Pool 17 Backfill to Basement & Pool 2w 08/12/2014 17 Backfill to Basement & Pool 18 Excavate & Construct Pad Foundations 2w 15/12/2014 18 Excavate & Construct Pad Foundations
19 Superstructure 25w 3d 05/01/2015 19 Superstructure 20 Erect Structural Steelwork 8w 05/01/2015 20 Erect Structural Steelwork 21 Install Metal Deck Packs 1w 09/02/2015 21 Install Metal Deck Packs 22 Install Precast Stairs 1w 16/02/2015 22 Install Precast Stairs 23 Fire Protection to Steelwork 2w 23/02/2015 23 Fire Protection to Steelwork 24 Safety Netting & Edge Protection to Roof 3d 02/03/2015 24 Safety Netting & Edge Protection to Roof 25 Install Roof Covering 8w 05/03/2015 25 Install Roof Covering 26 Safety Netting & Edge Protection to First Floor 3d 05/03/2015 26 Safety Netting & Edge Protection to First Floor 27 Metal Decking to First Floor 1w 10/03/2015 27 Metal Decking to First Floor
28 Stud welding, Reinforcement & Concrete to First Floor 3w 16/03/2015 28 Stud welding, Reinforcement & Concrete to First Floor
29 Underslab Drainage & Service Entry Points 4w 17/03/2015 29 Underslab Drainage & Service Entry Points 30 Install Gas Membrane 1w 3d 08/04/2015 30 Install Gas Membrane 31 Construct Ground Floor Slab 3w 15/04/2015 31 Construct Ground Floor Slab 32 Construct External Cavity Walls 5w 29/04/2015 32 Construct External Cavity Walls 33 Cladding & Curtain Walling 8w 29/04/2015 33 Cladding & Curtain Walling 34 External Drainage & Service Ducts 4w 05/06/2015 34 External Drainage & Service Ducts 35 Internal Blockwork Walls 7w 07/05/2015 35 Internal Blockwork Walls 36 M&E Containment 6w 27/05/2015 36 M&E Containment 37 Weatertightness Achieved 26/06/2015 37 Weatertightness Achieved
38 Fit Out 24w 3d 02/06/2015 38 Fit Out 39 First Fix M&E 6w 10/06/2015 39 First Fix M&E 40 Install Specialist Ventilation Ducts to Pool Hall 8w 06/07/2015 40 Install Specialist Ventilation Ducts to Pool Hall 41 First Fix Joinery 5w 30/06/2015 41 First Fix Joinery 42 Screed to Sports Hall & Ground Floor 2w 02/06/2015 42 Screed to Sports Hall & Ground Floor 43 Construct Partitions 7w 06/07/2015 43 Construct Partitions 44 Second Fix M&E 8w 13/07/2015 44 Second Fix M&E
45 Specialist M&E Equipment (Pool Filtration, Steam Room & Jacuzzi) 14w 26/06/2015 45 Specialist M&E Equipment (Pool Filtration, Steam Room & Jacuzzi)
46 Second Fix Joinery & IPS 8w 27/07/2015 46 Second Fix Joinery & IPS 47 Install Climbing Wall 2w 20/10/2015 47 Install Climbing Wall 48 Metal Work & Spectator Seating 4w 08/09/2015 48 Metal Work & Spectator Seating 49 M&F Ceilings 7w 20/07/2015 49 M&F Ceilings 50 Drying Out Period to Pool 8w 26/06/2015 50 Drying Out Period to Pool 51 Pool Linings / SIKA Render and Floor Finishes 8w 21/08/2015 51 Pool Linings / SIKA Render and Floor Finishes 52 Refill Pool 1w 19/10/2015 52 Refill Pool 53 Retest Pool 2w 26/10/2015 53 Retest Pool 54 Sprung Floor to Sports Hall 6w 08/09/2015 54 Sprung Floor to Sports Hall 55 Decoration / Protective Coverings 7w 4d 15/09/2015 55 Decoration / Protective Coverings 56 Suspended Ceilings 9w 4d 27/07/2015 56 Suspended Ceilings 57 Third Fix M&E 9w 24/08/2015 57 Third Fix M&E 58 Floor Coverings 7w 21/09/2015 58 Floor Coverings 59 Court Markings to Sports Hall 1w 20/10/2015 59 Court Markings to Sports Hall 60 Builders Clean 2w 06/10/2015 60 Builders Clean 61 Client Fit Out 5w 06/10/2015 61 Client Fit Out 62 Sparkle Clean & Decontamination 2w 09/11/2015 62 Sparkle Clean & Decontamination 63 Commissioning & Testing 5w 12/10/2015 63 Commissioning & Testing 64 End User Training & Induction 1w 16/11/2015 64 End User Training & Induction 65 Handover 23/11/2015 65 Handover
66 External Works 24w 14/05/2015 66 External Works 67 Install New Utilities 11w 2d 14/05/2015 67 Install New Utilities 68 Install Drainage to Car Park 5w 30/06/2015 68 Install Drainage to Car Park 69 Install Kerbs & Paving 6w 20/07/2015 69 Install Kerbs & Paving 70 Tarmac to Car Parking 4w 17/08/2015 70 Tarmac to Car Parking 71 White Lining & Signage 2w 15/09/2015 71 White Lining & Signage 72 Soft Landscaping 6w 15/09/2015 72 Soft Landscaping 73 Remove Site Accommodation & Make Good 2w 19/10/2015 73 Remove Site Accommodation & Make Good
74 3G Pitch Works 28w 1d 19/03/2015 74 3G Pitch Works 75 Reduced Level Excavation 2w 19/03/2015 75 Reduced Level Excavation 76 Under Pitch Drainage & Service Ducts 4w 30/03/2015 76 Under Pitch Drainage & Service Ducts 77 Construct Sub Bases 6w 15/04/2015 77 Construct Sub Bases 78 Seeding to 3G Pitch 1w 4d 21/05/2015 78 Seeding to 3G Pitch 79 Growing Period to 3G Pitch 12w 2d 04/06/2015 79 Growing Period to 3G Pitch 80 Reseed 3G Pitch 1w 01/09/2015 80 Reseed 3G Pitch 81 Erect Floodlights & Fencing 4w 20/08/2015 81 Erect Floodlights & Fencing 82 Testing & Commissioning 1w 18/09/2015 82 Testing & Commissioning 83 Indep[endent Certification 1w 25/09/2015 83 Indep[endent Certification 84 End User Training & Induction 1w 02/10/2015 84 End User Training & Induction
85 Project Complete 23/11/2015 85 Project Complete
-4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 Line Name Duration Start June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December J 2014 2015 16
Prog No: Indicative Con Prog Revision: B Drawn by: Chris Price Original Issue:14/10/2013 Comment: For Inclusion Within Gateway 2 Report Project Manager: Revision Date: 24/10/2013
Appendix D
Cost Plan & GIFA Schedule
Robertson Construction NEE Limited
Workington Leisure Centre
Strategic Procurement Arrangement 2010-2014
Scape National Projects Agreement
Invitation to Tender Pricing Schedule
Contents Worksheets Cover & Contents Introduction Typical Projects Fee Summary People C Equipment C Pre-Construction C Other People Feasability Costs Design Fees
Workington Leisure Centre - Pricing Schedule - Submitted Pricing Schedule Introduction All pricing instructions are subject to the provisions of the Framework Agreement and in particular Schedule 11 thereof.
People Costs
Contractor to price the people costs required on the typical projects identified based on the information available within this tender document.
Only costs for people as defined in SCC clause 1 should be included in this schedule. Costs for people who are directly employed by the Contractor and whose normal place of working is not within the working area but who may work in the working area shall be included in the Fee for their time working outside the working area.
Rates given for staff to include all costs associated with their employment as listed in NEC Schedule of Cost Components clause 11, 12 and 13. All other costs to be included in the Fee which will not be adjusted.
Time periods used and hours per week will be used for the calculation of projects during the Framework. For projects not according directly to the typical projects these will be interpolated between the projects.
Contractor can add additional staff as required at the tender stage. No other staff will be allowed during the Framework unless specifically requested by the Client.
People costs will be agreed at the Project Agreement in accordance with the Framework agreement.
Pre-Construction costs will be agreed at the Project Order stage in accordance with the Framework Agreement.
In addition to the costs identified below the Contractor will be able to add the Direct Fee percentage in accordance with the NEC contract to these costs but not the Working Areas overhead percentage.
Any sub-contract costs incurred during the pre-construction phase (surveys/design fees etc) will be tendered in accordance with the principles of Schedule 14 (Target Cost) and will be paid at cost in accordance with the principles of the NEC contract, plus the Sub-contracted Fee percentage save for the Scape fee.
At the agreement of the Target Cost all pre-construction costs will be incorporated in to the Target Cost, albeit they will have been paid separately prior to the Project Agreement by the Client.
Equipment Costs
Contractor to price their equipment costs (accommodation and associated items only) required on the typical projects identified based on the information available within this tender document.
Time periods used and hours per week will be used for the calculation of projects during the Framework. For projects not according directly to the typical projects these will be interpolated between the projects.
Contractor can add additional accommodation as required at the tender stage. No other accommodation will be allowed during the Framework unless specifically requested by the Client. Any client required accommodation will be agreed on a project by project basis by reference to the rates stated.
Equipment (accommodation and associated item) costs will be agreed at the Project Agreement in accordance with the Framework Agreement.
Pricing Instructions - People Costs
Insert the number of weeks the Contractor anticipates together with the particular grades of staff based on the pre-construction and construction periods stated. Insert the percentage time required for each particular grade of staff for the period previously stated (within the headings given). Insert the full time weekly cost for the grade of staff. Multiply the number of weeks by the percentage by the full time weekly cost to give a project cost for that particular grade of staff.
Example:- Contract Manager on a 42 week construction period contract. Contractor may also consider to be required for 1 week prior to site and 1 week after - total 44 weeks on site Percentage of time required for this project - 40% Full time weekly cost for Contract Manager - £750.00 Calculation:- 44 weeks x 40% x £750.00 = £13,200.00
The aforementioned calculation methodology also applies to the pre-construction costs
Pricing Instructions - Equipment Costs
Insert a quantity for each type of accommodation the Contractor anticipates they will require. Insert the number of weeks based on the construction periods stated. Insert the weekly cost for the type of accommodation. Multiply the quantity of each accommodation type by the number of weeks by the weekly cost to give a project cost for that particular type of accommodation.
Fee
Insert the fee percentage, which will be applied to all direct costs, for the particular value bands.
Summary
All the tender costs will be bought forward to the Summary worksheet where the fee percentage will be applied and multiplied by the anticipated number of projects. The evaluation will be in accordance with the Instructions to Tenderers and Methodology of Evaluation document.
Other People Costs
The Contractor is invited to enter details of staff and their hourly rate who would be available to assist the client (if specifically requested) at the very earliest stages of a project by ensuring they are "ready to engage" with the Framework process. This may entail such functions as understanding the client's political restrictions and financial regulations, explaining how the framework operates and the procurement process, operating lean Project Management techniques and generally guiding the client through the process. This service may be project related or may be of a more generic nature.
These costs will not form part of the evaluation, however the rates shall only be subject to adjustment in accordance with Clause 8.4 of the Framework Agreement.
Workington Leisure Centre - Pricing Schedule - Submitted Typical Projects for insertion in Schedule 11 of the Framework Agreement
Typical Project ABCDEF
Estimated Defined Cost as defined in the Model Project Agreement less the estimated Schedule of Cost Components for People Costs, Equipment Costs (Accommodation) and People Costs for Pre-Construction Activities £3,000,000 £5,000,000 £7,500,000 £12,500,000 £20,000,000 £5,000,000
Refurbishment Element (percentage of overall project cost) < 10% < 10% < 10% < 10% < 10% > 75%
Pre-Construction period in weeks 26 26 36 52 52 26
Construction period in weeks 37 52 54 68 72 52
Anticipated number of projects 5 13 11 4 1 3
Workington Leisure Centre - Pricing Schedule - Submitted Contractor's Fee Percentage ~ as defined in Schedule 11 of the Framework Agreement
Fee Percentage Projects Defined Cost Value Band (Subcontracted and Direct)
£2,000,000 - £4,999,999 1.75%
£5,000,000 - £14,999,999 1.75%
£15,000,000 - £30,000,000 1.75%
Workington Leisure Centre - Pricing Schedule - Submitted Summary Project C
Estimated Defined Cost of Project as defined in the Model Project Agreement less the estimated Schedule of Cost Components for People Costs, Equipment Costs (Accommodation) and People Costs for Pre- Construction Activities £8,521,588.61 % adj for Quality score Increase in S/C cost Estimated Defined Cost of Project (as defined above) (adjusted for quality) £8,521,588.61 People Costs £510,538.35 Equipment £42,087.00 People Costs (Pre-Construction) £49,633.74 People Costs (Pre-Construction - Co-ordinate & Manage) £30,731.40 Sub-Total £9,154,579.10 Fee Percentage - OH&P 1.75% Fee as a Sum £160,205.13
Total £9,314,784.23
Anticipated number of Projects 1 Total: Project x Number £9,314,784.23
Workington Leisure Centre - Pricing Schedule - Submitted Typical Project C As schedule 10 of the Framework Agreement Estimated Defined Cost as defined in the Model Project Agreement less the estimated Schedule of Cost Components for People Costs, Equipment Costs (Accommodation) and People Costs for Pre-Construction Activities £7,500,000 Estimated Pre-Construction Period 36 Weeks - (Gateway 2 - 4) Estimated Construction Period 70 Weeks - (Gateway 4 + [Start on Site] - 5)
SCHEDULE OF COST COMPONENTS - PEOPLE COSTS
Rates to include all items listed in NEC Schedule of Cost No of % of WEEKLY TOTAL Components Items 11-13 WEEKS WEEK COST £ COST £
PRODUCTION Operations Director 70 20% £2,534.70 £35,485.80 Operations Manager 70 30% £1,835.40 £38,543.40 Senior Building Manager 70 100% £1,486.80 £104,076.00 Building Manager 70 100% £1,248.45 £87,391.50 Assistant Building Manager 35 100% £994.35 £34,802.25 ENGINEERING Senior Engineer included in activity schedules EXCL
COMMERCIAL Commercial Manager 70 20% £2,007.60 £28,106.40 Principal Surveyor £1,749.30 Senior Project Surveyor 70 100% £1,518.30 £106,281.00 Project Surveyor £1,213.80 Assistant Quantity Surveyor 15 100% £956.55 £14,348.25 PLANNING Planning Manager 65 20% £1,680.00 £21,840.00 Required for a project of this value Senior Planning Engineer £1,313.55
DESIGN CO-ORDINATION
M & E SERVICES Services Manager 70 10% £1,529.85 £10,708.95
SUPPORT SERVICES Secretarial / administration 70 50% £537.60 £18,816.00 Trainees £688.80
GENERAL SITE LABOUR (please specify) Labourers included in activity schedules EXCL
OTHERS (please specify) Customer Care Manager 8 100% £1,267.35 £10,138.80
Total of People Costs to Summary £ £510,538.35 is value Typical Project C As schedule 10 of the Framework Agreement
Estimated Defined Cost as defined in the Model Project Agreement less the estimated Schedule of Cost Components for People Costs, Equipment Costs (Accommodation) and People Costs for Pre- Construction Activities £7,500,000 Estimated Pre-Construction Period 36 Weeks - (Gateway 2 - 4) Estimated Construction Period 70 Weeks - (Gateway 4 + [Start on Site]- 5)
SCHEDULE OF COST COMPONENTS - EQUIPMENT COSTS
QUANTITY WEEKS WEEKLY TOTAL SITE ACCOMMODATION COST £ COST £
Offices - 2 on 2 setup 1 70 £353.00 £24,710.00 Meeting Rooms Included Canteen Included Stores 1 70 £28.00 £1,960.00 Drying Room Included Toilets Included Other (specify) - smoking shelter 1 70 £13.00 £910.00 Other (specify) - bases, paths etc. 1 1 £4,500.00 £4,500.00
Transport 1 1 £9,307.00 £9,307.00 Erect & Dismantle Included Moves
Mobile Cranage Site specific package cost EXCL
Furniture & white goods Included
Fittings/equipment: W/cs Included W/hand basins Included Urinals Included Other (specify)
Fire fighting equipment for above accommodation ONLY £200.00 Lockers Included in above rates Included Canteen subsidy Included Ventilation Included Sewer connection for above accommodation ONLY £500.00
Total of Equipment Costs to Summary £ £42,087.00 Typical Project C As schedule 10 of the Framework Agreement Estimated Defined Cost as defined in the Model Project Agreement less the estimated Schedule of Cost Components for People Costs, Equipment Costs (Accommodation) and People Costs for Pre- Construction Activities £7,500,000 Estimated Pre-Construction Period 36 Weeks - (Gateway 2 - 4) Estimated Construction Period 70 Weeks - (Gateway 4 + [Start on Site]- 5)
PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES - SCHEDULE OF COST COMPONENTS - PEOPLE COSTS
No of % of WEEKLY TOTAL Rates to include all items listed in NEC Schedule of Cost Components Items 11-13 WEEKS WEEK COST £ COST £
PRODUCTION Operations/Project Director £2,534.70 Operations/Construction Manager £1,835.40 Senior Building Manager 36 20% £1,486.80 £10,704.96 £1,248.45 Assistant Building Manager £994.35 ENGINEERING
COMMERCIAL Commercial Manager £2,007.60 Principal Surveyor £1,749.30 Senior Project Surveyor £1,518.30 Project Surveyor £1,213.80 Assistant Project Surveyor £956.55 PLANNING Planning Manager £1,680.00 Senior Planner 36 10% £1,313.55 £4,728.78
DESIGN CO-ORDINATION
M & E SERVICES Services Manager £1,529.85
SUPPORT SERVICES Preconstruction Manager 36 20% £1,650.00 £11,880.00 Principal Estimator £1,600.00 Senior Estimator 36 40% £1,550.00 £22,320.00 Estimator £1,500.00 OTHERS (please specify)
Total of People Costs (Pre-Construction) to Summary £ £49,633.74
PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES - SCHEDULE OF COST COMPONENTS - PEOPLE COSTS
No of % of WEEKLY TOTAL Rates to include all items listed in NEC Schedule of Cost Components Items 11-13 WEEKS WEEK COST £ COST £
Add those grades of staff who will be involved should the Contractor be requested to co-ordinate and manage the design process from Gateway 2 through to Gateway 4 and ensure the pre- construction activities in Schedule 10 are achieved. This may be either with a Client appointed design team or a Contractor appointed design team.
Senior Design Manager £1,732.50 Design Manager £1,686.30 Senior Design Coordinator 36 60% £1,422.75 £30,731.40
Total of People Costs (Pre-Construction - Co-ordinate & Manage) to Summary £ £30,731.40
Total £80,365.14 OTHER PEOPLE COSTS
Rates to be inclusive of all costs and disbursements as listed in NEC Schedule of Cost HOURLY Components Items 11-13 COST £ STAFF GRADE External Consultant £312.50 Director £96.00 Senior Manager £60.00 Manager £48.00
Workington Leisure Centre - Pricing Schedule - Submitted PROJECT: WORKINGTON LEISURE CENTRE
TENDER: TBA
STATUS: FEASIBILITY (RIBA STAGE 1)
DATE: 21st OCTOBER 2013 GIFA New Bldg. 4,389 m2
MINIMUM COSTS Pre- % OVERALL RNE Cost Cost/M2 Construction COST Costs ALL FIGURES ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST £10,000
1A Demolition - - - - 1B Site Clearance 100,000 21.85 1.07% - 1D Foundations 510,000 115.41 5.48% - 1E Ground Floor Slab 110,000 25.93 1.18% - 0.00 Substructure Total 720,000 7.73% - 0.00 2A Frame 490,000 111.64 5.26% - 2B Upper Floors 110,000 25.24 1.18% - 2C Roof 360,000 81.05 3.86% - 2D Stairs 80,000 18.41 0.86% - 2E External Walls 250,000 57.42 2.68% - 2F Windows, External Doors 130,000 29.80 1.40% - 2G Internal Walls & Partitions 490,000 112.43 5.26% - 2H Internal Doors 40,000 9.88 0.43% - 0.00 Superstructure Total 1,950,000 20.93% - 0.00 3A Wall Finishes 110,000 24.16 1.18% - 3B Floor Finishes 170,000 39.71 1.83% - 3C Ceiling Finishes 60,000 13.40 0.64% - 4A Fixtures & Fittings 410,000 93.76 4.40% - 0.00 Internal Finishes Total 750,000 8.05% - 0.00 5A Mechanical Installation 1,680,000 383.67 18.04% - 5B Electrical Installation 1,180,000 269.66 12.67% - 5C Specialist Installation (Lifts & Hoists) - 0.00 0.00% - 5D Builders work in connection 70,000 15.80 0.75% - 0.00 Services Total 2,930,000 31.46% - 0.00 6A Site Works 320,000 72.48 3.44% - 6B Drainage 160,000 37.51 1.72% - 6C External Services 90,000 20.84 0.97% - 6D Play Area's 30,000 6.81 0.32% - 6E Sports Pitches 500,000 115.00 5.37% - 6F Soft Landscaping 60,000 12.78 0.64% - 6G Hard Landscaping 70,000 16.25 0.75% - 6H External Lighting 10,000 1.49 0.11% - 6I External Furniture 10,000 1.24 0.11% - 0.00 External Works Total 1,250,000 13.42% - 0.00 7 Client Provisional Sums - 0.00 0.00% - 0.00 BUILDING TOTAL C/F 7,600,000 81.59% -
RNE Design Fees 160,391 36.54 1.72% -
RNE Surveys/Other Fees 20,715 4.72 0.22% -
RNE Pre Construction Design Fees 410,881 93.62 4.41% 410,881
RNE Pre Construction Surveys/Other Fees 81,400 18.55 0.87% 81,400
Risk Items @3% 248,202 56.48 2.66% -
Design Contingency INCLUDED IN RISK ITEM Incl. Incl. Incl. -
On Cost Total 921,589 9.89% 492,281
SUB-TOTAL (DEFINED COST) 8,521,589 91.48% 492,281
Preliminaries - As Feasability Costs 0.00 0.00% People Costs 510,538 116.32 5.48% - Equipment 42,087 9.59 0.45% - People Costs (Pre-Construction) 49,634 11.31 0.53% - People Costs (Pre-Construction - Co-ordinate & Manage) 30,731 7.00 0.33% 30,731
Overheads and Profit 1.75% 160,205 33.94 1.72% 9,153
TARGET COST 9,314,784 100.00% 532,165
Risk Allowance (Pain/Gain) N/A Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl.
MAXIMUM CLIENT SCHEME COMMITMENT 9,314,784 100.00% 532,165
Client Direct Costs Design Fees - (Based upon Max Client Commitment) - 0.00 0.00% - Surveys/Other Fees - (Based upon Max Client Commitment) - 0.00 0.00% - Planning Application Fee (Included in Surveys/Other Fees) - 0.00 0.00% - Public Art (Planning - Risk Item) - 0.00 0.00% - Loose Furniture & Equipment (Client Identified Sum) - 0.00 0.00% - ICT Hardware/Software (Included within Loose Furniture) - 0.00 0.00% - Telephones (Included within Loose Furniture) - 0.00 0.00% - Relocation Costs (Client Identified Sum) - 0.00 0.00% -
OVERALL PROJECT COST (EXCLUDING VAT) 9,314,784 0.00 100.00% 532,165 Project: Workington Leisure Centre
Status: Feasability (RIBA Stage 1)
Schedule of Design Fees
Pre-Construction Construction Stage Item Consultant Design Fee Design Fees Total Fee Comments
Architect Gowdridge Thomason £214,351.00 £72,401.00 £286,752.00
Structural/Civil Engineer WYG £57,750.00 £24,750.00 £82,500.00 Assumed 70% Pre-Construction
M&E Engineer WYG £86,100.00 £36,900.00 £123,000.00 Assumed 70% Pre-Construction
Landscape design TBA £45,500.00 £19,500.00 £65,000.00 0.75% of Construction Cost
Pool Filtration Design Sheerwater £7,180.00 £6,840.00 £14,020.00
Sub-Total £410,881.00 £160,391.00 £571,272.00
Planning application advice WYG £2,975.00 £2,975.00 As quotation 18/10/13
Planning Policy Statement WYG £4,600.00 £4,600.00 As quotation 18/10/13
Planning Application Allerdale Borough Concil £20,889.00 £20,889.00 As discussion 15/10/13
Planning Discharge Fee's Allerdale Borough Concil £190.00 £285.00 £475.00 5 No Submissions
Traffic Impact Assessment Curtins £11,000.00 £11,000.00 Additional Quotations required
Transport Assessement Incl. - -
Site Investigation Works SubSurface £6,393.00 £6,393.00 As Quotation 4/9/13
Ground Gas Risk Assessment Subsurface £1,000.00 £1,000.00 Budget
Topographical/Radar Survey Atlantic Geomatics £4,163.00 £4,163.00 Complete
Accoustic Surveys TBA £10,000.00 £10,000.00 Budget
Flood Risk Assessment Subsurface £1,940.00 £1,940.00 Complete
Ecologist TBA £2,000.00 £2,000.00 Budget
Access Consultant Required? £5,000.00 £5,000.00 Budget
Fire Consultant Required? £5,000.00 £5,000.00 Budget
Low & Zero Carbon Energy Feasibility Study' WYG Incl. Incl.
Pre-BREEAM assessment. WYG £1,500.00 £1,500.00 As Quotation 17/10/13
BREEM Assessment WYG £12,060.00 £12,060.00 As Quotation 17/10/13
SBEM Assessment WYG Incl. Incl.
IES Model WYG Incl. Incl.
Conciderate Contractors £620.00 £620.00
Building Regs Allerdale Borough Council £3,750.00 £3,750.00 £7,500.00 Budget received 15/10/13
CDM Co-ordinator TBA £1,000.00 £4,000.00 £5,000.00 Budget
Sub-Total £81,400.00 £20,715.00 £102,115.00
Sub-Total £492,281.00 £181,106.00 £673,387.00 Level Area type Area (m²)
Ba se me nt Basement plan 140 Net useable area 140 GIFA 140
Ground Floor 4 court sports hall 700 Sports hall store 01 32 Sports hall store 02 70 Learner Pool inc. confidence water 234 Main Pool hall 542 Plant 32 Drench shower 4.4 Chemical store 4.6 Acid store 3.3 Pool store 46.5 Wet Change Village 270 Vanity 1 8.5 Vanity 2 8.8 Group change 01 14 Group change 02 14 Changing places 12 Access wc female change 4.5 Access wc male change 4.5 Uni sex Wc's 8 Cleaners store 19 Cleaners store 29 Male Wc 18.3 Store 5.2 Access wc 3 Access wc 3 General Office 20 Cash Office 6 Coms room 2 Reception 10.8 Staff Room 21 Managers Office 11 Climbing Wall and Store 100 Sauna and Steam 20 Access wc 4 Street 121 Foyer / Queuing area 62 Café 100 Kitchen 65 Entrance lobby 26 Buggy Store 7 First aid 12.7 Stair 01 5.9 Stair 02 17.6 Stair 03 26 2 squash courts 100
Net useable area 2,799 GIFA 2,949
First Floo r Fitness gym - 100 stations 500 Male dry change 83 Female Dry Change 87 Disabled Shower WC Change 5.9 Disabled Shower WC Change 5.9 First aid / Consultation room 11.3 Lift 3.5 Lobby from spectator seating 9.5 Staff Area 47 Corridor 54 Spectators seating 83 Studio 1 140 Studio 2 100 Studio Store 110 Studio Store 212 Stair 02 14.5 Stair 03 6.1 Distribution cubd 2.7 Cupboard 1.4 Fitness Store 6.3 Net useable area 1,183 GIFA 1,300
Roo f Roof top plant 306 Net useable area 306 GIFA 306 Total Nett Not including roof plant 4122 Total GIFA Not including roof plant 4389
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix 7: Risk Register
This page is intentionally left blank
Risk Register: New Sports Centre
4
3 Likelihood:
1. Very unlikely 2. Unlikely 3. Likely 3 4. Very likely
Impact: 2 1 Likelihood 1. Minor 2. Significant 2 3. Serious 4. Major
4 6 5
7 1
1 2 3 4
Impact
No. Risk Likelihood/ Mitigation Actions / Target Date R/A/G Escalate Responsible Impact Comments Y/N Officer
1 Failure to agree 2/4 Public Consultation 13 November N Corporate site within Communications plan 2013 Director proposed Members presented with timescales final options for approval
Planning consultant to 2 Failure to bring 2/3 be appointed 31 January N Corporate site forward for Planning permission 2013 Director development required (depending on site Mineral rights issues to selected) be resolved Intrusive site investigation works
3 Failure to agree 3/4 External funding 31 December N Corporate adequate funding opportunities to be 2013 Director for the explored (Resources) development Funding package put in place Council capital provided through borrowing and asset sales Clarification of projects Costs needed following consultation
4 New site not 1/3 Business Plan review 31 December N Corporate financially viable commissioned including 2013 Director third party advice/ financial modelling Subject to management fee agreement.
5 Lack of 1/3 Stakeholder consultation 30 September N Head of community buy in, plan in place 2013 Community in site selection Communications plan to Services process be developed
6 Procurement 1/4 Procurement paper 13 November N Corporate options not fully commissioned 2013 Director considered for Report presented to build and / or Members for operation consideration
7 Project not 2/3 Managed through 31 December N Head of delivered in line Performance 2013 Community with Council Management Framework Services Objectives / Specific resources priorities allocated to project Other mitigations for risks 1-6 delivered Principles of operation to be discussed with Members
8 Failure to agree 1/4 Consider management 31 March N Head of management options 2014 Community arrangements Discuss with CLL and Services vary contract if and when appropriate
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix 8: Scape Project Process Map
This page is intentionally left blank
Project Process Map
STAGE A 1 Inception STAGE B Access Agreement Issued GATEWAY 1 2 Feasibility Issue Framework Manual Initial Client Brief Access Agreement Signed > Confirm Funds Secured Issue Project Request
Confirm & Develop Brief Select Design Option Appoint CDM Coordinator STAGES E-H Value Management Workshop Pre-Construction Project Checklist Risk Workshop & Risk Register 4 Detailed Design Appoint PM and QS GATEWAY 2 Surveys Formalise Appointments Project Consultant Selection Outline Programme Prepare Target Costs Doable DQI/AEDAT briefing > Feasibility Report Prepare Contractors Proposals
Project Execution Plan RACI Workshop Detailed Design Information
Initial Planning Enquiry Agree Pre-Construction Scope Ongoing VE & VM Reviews
Options Appraisal Agree Pre-Construction Cost Continue Liason with Planning
Project Order Submit & Obtain Planning Finalise Risk Register STAGES C/D GATEWAY 3 Pre-Construction First Designs Finalise Programme 3 Develop Design & Costs > Finalise H&S Plan etc Hold Launch Meeting KPI Review Design Team Meetings Formalise Contract Data Design Proposals GATEWAY 4 Submit Target Cost Initial Cost Plan Information to Contract Evaluation of Target Cost VM & Risk Workshops > Agree All Documents & Costs Select Supply Chain Raise Order Mid Design DQI & KPI Review Sign Memorandum of Agreement Design Freeze STAGES J/K Update Costs Construction GATEWAY 5 Develop H&S Plan 5 Mobilisation Build STAGE L > Post Project Planning Application Construction Design Information 6 Completion Review H&S Plan Post Project Review
Review Risk Register Issue Defects Certificate
Update Target Cost GATEWAY 6 Agree Final Contract Sum Review Testing & Commissioning Lessons Learnt > Handover DQI/AEDAT Review Key to shading Issue PC Certificate
Client owned tasks Make Good Defects Jointly owned tasks KPI Review Post Occupation Contractor owned tasks Feedback Evaluation 7 Finish
...making it happen