Issue - meetings

 

Questions submitted by Peter Brown, Vice Convener, Helensburgh Community Council

 

Question 1

 

I would be grateful if the committee could clarify the content of Phase 2. 

 

The Position Statement says that Phase 2 “includes the retail development, skate park, play park and landscaping”.  It would be perfectly understandable if the ‘blank area’ in the development plan was Phase 2, but the landscaping for which the committee are being asked to increase the budget is not in the ‘blank area’.  The West Clyde Street landscaping is clearly detailed in the plans which are to be considered at the PPSL committee on 19^th December.  This means that either:

• The plans that are in front of the PPSL committee include items from both Phase 1 and Phase 2, and so the budget that the Area Committee have previously agreed does not cover all of the plans.  In that case, I would ask for clarification of what the budget previously agreed covers?

Or

• The plans that are in front of the PPSL committee cover just Phase 1, in which case the Area Committee should not be asked to increase the budget that was previously agreed.

 

Response from CHORD Programme Manager:

 

As it clearly states at section 5.6.1 of the Report to be considered at Item 13 of today’s Agenda, it was originally envisaged that the landscaping of the area to the North of the site, along the West Clyde Street frontage, would be part of Phase 2, and therefore no budget allowance for it had been made.

 

That is why we are now asking the Area Committee to recommend, to the Policy and Resources Committee, that additional funding allowance be made a part of the 2019/20 Budget Process. 

 

The inclusion of the start of the John Muir Trail is something which came about as part of the consultation process and following on from our purchase of the ex-Mariners site.

 

It was considered that relocating the start of the trail to this new public space at the northwest corner of the development site would have mutual advantages, both for the start of the trail and this new public space.

 

The other benefit of purchasing the ex-Mariners site was that it provided the physical space for us to introduce a left turning lane from the pierhead site following the Traffic Assessment.

 

The budget previously agreed covered the following elements:

 

• The construction of the new leisure centre
• Construction of improved flood defences, including raising the levels across the site, new rock armour, flood defence walls and surface water drainage infrastructure
• Construction of new car parking facilities, including short and medium term coach parking within the site, and the infrastructure to allow for increased provision in electric vehicle charging points
• Construction of new public realm in the immediate vicinity of the site i.e. on the west, south and eastern elevations, including a pedestrian walkway / cycle path around the perimeter of the site
• Demolition of the existing swimming pool
• Professional Fees, surveys and statutory approvals
• Risk, Contingency, Preliminaries, Inflation

 

Question 2

 

Previous budget plans for the development have included an expectation of £250,000 funding from Sport Scotland to pay for the moveable floor for the training pool.  That does not appear in the budget in Section 6.0.  Where is this money – if it is no longer being requested from Sport Scotland then where is the money to pay for the moveable floor to come from?

 

Response from CHORD Programme Manager:

 

It had always been the project’s intention to apply for funding support from SportScotland, given that one of the key elements was the construction of a new leisure building.

 

Very early discussions and engagement with SportScotland suggested that a funding application in the region of £1m would not be considered unreasonable for a major project such as the construction of a new leisure centre.  However due to reductions in the SportScotland budget this figure was downturned to £500k, and in October 2017 we were advised that due to further budget cuts the maximum funding support for any single project would be £100k.

 

One of the key priorities for SportScotland was projects which improved inclusivity and accessibility to sports facilities, and this fed in to our design development wherein we have included a number of features or facilities which are examples of best practice e.g. Changing Places facility and pool pods.

 

Argyll and Bute Council made a funding application to SportScotland for £100k in March, however the informal feedback that we have received, September 2018, was that our application had been unsuccessful. We are still awaiting formal confirmation of this decision, but considered it financially prudent to discount it from our current budget assumptions.

We are currently exploring a number of other external funding opportunities in support of the project, but these are at very early stages.

 

Question 3

 

The cost of this project appears to be constantly growing.

 

In June 2016, the Project Initiating Document forecast that the development would cost £18.2M including:

• £2.1M on “car park/public realm”, which should have included the landscaping that now requires extra funding
• £4.1M that included “prelims/contingencies/inflation/risks”.

 

Despite this last item, the budget has now grown to £19M, and a further £0.5M is being requested of the Area Committee.  In addition, the revised plans in front of the PPSL committee show an additional 0.5m seawall on top of the flood defences, which has yet to be costed.

 

It is likely that this addition to the defences will take the cost of the project close to £20M, which is an increase of £1.8M, or 10%, in just 18 months.  And that is before a Full Business Case for the leisure centre has been completed.

 

How expensive does this development need to become before the Area Committee decides that it is unaffordable, and that the cheaper solution, of locating the leisure centre closer to the existing swimming pool so that the flood defences can be reduced in both height and cost, is the right solution?

 

Response from CHORD Programme Manager:

 

We  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4