PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
:
Minutes:
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 19th December. This means
that either:
Or
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:
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:
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:
: