Agenda Item 12

Cabinet

2 March 2011

Review of Indoor Sport & Leisure Facilities MTFP Ref: NS1

Report of Corporate Management Team Terry Collins, Corporate Director, Neighbourhood Serves Councillor Bob Young, Portfolio Holder for Strategic Environment and Leisure

Purpose of the Report

1 The purpose of this report is to set out for Members consideration a basis for selecting Sport & Leisure facilities for consultation on closure. This is part of the current programme of MTFP required efficiency savings and is in line with the Council’s Sport and Leisure Service Strategy.

Background

2 Strategic Drivers: Indoor facilities form only part of the Sport and Leisure offer alongside Sport and Leisure Development, Outdoor Sport and Countryside Services; all of which have a focus on participation. The Sport and Leisure Strategy (approved for consultation June 2010) is explicit in proposing a shift in emphasis from indoor facilities to alternative approaches such as maximising the use of the outdoor environment and more targeted interventions more able to engage hard-to-reach groups. Similarly, the Strategy proposes a greater emphasis on raising participation via community settings and specifically through voluntary sector sports clubs.

3 Whilst this changing emphasis on the nature of provision forms a central strand of the service’s Strategy, Sport and Leisure Services are challenged by a 25% reduction in available resources in the Authority’s Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). This equates to a £3.5M reduction in the Sport and Leisure revenue budget over the next four years with £1.46M falling in year 1 due to the front loading of efficiency savings requirements in the MTFP. Proposals to meet this include a saving of £1,098,100 from a review of indoor facilities. The target date for commencement of this saving is October 2011, and therefore any rationalisation of indoor facilities would need to occur on or before 01 October 2011.

4 By way of context the efficiency savings arising from a reduction in the number of indoor facilities forms part of total savings of £20.29M required of the Neighbourhood Service grouping over the next four years.

5 Whilst this report is presented as part of the efficiency agenda, and certainly proposes a significant reduction in the number and cost of indoor facilities,

Members’ attention is drawn to the fact that such a change was already an integral part of plans to transform the nature of the service post LGR. The current facility stock is in many cases outdated and poorly located, being premised on the previous district boundaries and structure. Similarly, indoor facilities should not be seen as the only mechanism through which participation in Sport and Leisure can be grown. Indeed, indoor facilities have proven unsuccessful in engaging hard to reach groups and a change in emphasis to community based activity will bring with it a number of benefits in this area, which is a cornerstone of the Sport and Leisure Strategy.

6 Current Provision: The Council currently provides 19 indoor sport and leisure facilities across the County; many of which were constructed in the 1970s and early 1980s. 14 of these are managed directly by the Sport and Leisure Service and 5 are managed under contract by third party organisations (two of which, Belle Vue Leisure Centre and Swim Centre are operated as a single site).

7 In addition to those facilities above the service also provides two cultural facilities which are managed by the Derwentside Trust for Sport and Arts; the Lamplight Arts Centre and Empire Theatre. Roseberry Golf Course and the Riverside Sports Complex also fall within the service but are subject to separate reviews and are outside the scope of this report.

8 In order to properly consider where the Authority should be in terms of its indoor facility provision, it is useful to benchmark Durham’s provision against the regional picture. The table below shows the number of facilities operated by the Council is significantly higher than most other North East Local Authorities currently provide when comparing the number of facilities per 1000 of population. Whilst this report focuses around the requirement to meet financial constraints within the MTFP, it should be noted that an over provision of indoor facilities is recognised within the current Sport and Leisure Strategy.

Authority Number of Indoor

Facilities (excluding

school sites)

Population Population Per Facility

000’s

Northumberland 12 307,400 25.6 Durham 19 493,051 25.9 Gateshead 7 191,200 27.3 Newcastle 9 266,200 29.6 Sunderland 9 284,600 31.6

North Tyneside 6 192,000 32.0 Hartlepool 2 90,200 45.1 Stockton Upon Tees 4 183,800 45.9 Darlington 2 97,900 48.9 South Tyneside 2 152,800 76.4

9 The table shows that County Durham has the second lowest ‘population per facility’ at 25,900, with only Northumberland being lower. This is in part a reflection of the geographical size and population distribution of rural counties compared to the urban authorities. However, it clearly shows that, currently, County Durham has a generous supply of facilities compared to others. This is demonstrated in value for money terms in that the Council is a top quartile spender on Sport and Leisure Services. Spending in this area is discretionary although it makes a clear contribution to many of the Council’s objectives.

Material Considerations

10 There are a number of relevant and material considerations in undertaking a review of indoor leisure provision. These form the basis of criteria that has been used to assess the current provision.

(i) The Strategic context and priorities of the County with regards to Sport and Leisure.

(ii) Service Access issues; (in terms of participation rates), including the service offer and ability to access it.

(iii) Operational issues and influences associated with individual facilities including cost, usage levels and building condition.

(iv) Supply and Demand for facilities.

11 The key is to establish those facilities which are, and will continue to be most effective in providing increased participation levels. A matrix of factors are appropriate and need consideration in reviewing future provision including; the emerging priorities from the Local Development Framework (LDF), the facility mix, accessibility, building quality, revenue subsidy, and the evidence provided by the strategic planning tools (supply and demand) of Sport England. These are explored further in the following sections.

Strategic Context and Priorities of the County 12 The provision of facilities needs to be informed by strategic need and reflect

the strategic priorities and strategies of the County. The wider strategies of the County have been developed in response to a number of Sport and Leisure related drivers including:

a. Tackling obesity, the wider physical activity agenda and the debate about what sport and leisure can contribute to this;

b. The inherited legacy concerning the age and condition of community sports facilities’ asset base and potential for capital investment going forward to maintain the existing provision, which may not necessarily meet community needs now or in the future;

c. Opportunities that are presented to link with future investment in school facilities and those being provided as part of Building Schools for the Future;

d. The Issues and Options being considered as part of the development of the Local Development Framework (LDF) to focus new housing development in the main towns of the County and to establish a settlement hierarchy.

13 The core document articulating the overall strategic direction and long term vision for the economic, social and environmental well being of the County based on community needs and priorities is the Sustainable Community Strategy for County Durham 2010-2030 (SCS). This document sets out the shared vision and outcomes for the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP).

14 The strategy specifically aspires to young people having lots of opportunities to participate in sport, leisure and physical activity and increasing the levels of involvement. Swimming participation is specifically identified as a target for young people along with initiatives to encourage participation in activities in the natural environment. The strategy recognises that achieving the vision will mean making significant changes in investment priorities, if increases in physical activity are to be met.

15 The over-riding aim of the Council’s Sport and Leisure Service Strategy 2011 – 2014 is to increase participation in physical activity by 0.5% per year in accordance with the SCS, whilst anticipating a significant reduction in funding over the plan period. The strategy generally seeks to reduce dependence on built facilities with a refocusing on the natural environment and development of targeted activities as a resource for people to take part in physical and recreational activity, as part of either sport or day to day routines, and to make this easier through well designed and locally accessible facilities.

16 In line with the proposals to refocus activities on the natural environment and developed activities and the requirement to reduce spending, there is recognition within the Sport and Leisure Strategy that in some areas, investment is not currently proportional to impact. Nevertheless it is acknowledged that a “core offer” of wet and dry sports facilities is part of the essential infrastructure necessary to be able to meet participation targets.

17 The LDF is the spatial plan for County Durham (“County Durham Plan: Planning for the Future of County Durham” (June 2010)) and is the principal document that will guide future development and growth in the County to 2030. It is an objective of the Core Strategy that:

“All members of the community have access to employment educational, social, sporting, health, recreational and cultural facilities …..”

In determining the future distribution of facilities it would appear appropriate to use the LDF framework in guiding the location and thereby accessibility of services.

Service Access: 18 In order to ensure that the service maximises access opportunities to its

facilities and ensures all residents receive a fair and equitable service the following criteria are considered to be relevant:

a. Travel Time: Sport England have identified travel time as a reasonable proxy measure for measuring people’s opportunity to access sport and leisure facilities. This report will consider the current coverage and the impact of the proposed closures on travel time.

b. Core Offer: In considering any future service offer it is important that, in order to maximise participation, the service reflects a range of activities that appeal to as many segments of the community as possible. Sport and Leisure Services have identified a ‘Core Offer’ which it believes should be a key driver/standard level of service, even within a rationalisation programme. This offer includes a base level of facilities that allows the flexibility within which to programme a range of activities capable of meeting the demands of all sections of the community. The actual scale and nature of facilities will be determined by local demands and may also include additional facilities or specific specialisms. The development of a core offer also provides a number of benefits in establishing a business operating model across all facilities. A Core-Offer for indoor facilities would include the following:

• Swimming Provision

• Health and Fitness Facilities

• Sports Hall Provision

• Aerobic/Dance Studio 19 Ideally, the core offer would also include the provision of outdoor facilities,

including an artificial grass pitch (AGP), but given the lack of such provision across the existing facility stock this is somewhat irrelevant in the context of considering a rationalisation programme. Priorities for the future provision of AGP’s are currently being assessed as part of the Playing Pitch Strategy and as such are not a main consideration of this review.

Operational Considerations 20 In addition to access matters there are a number of operational issues which

are also material in considering the viability and suitability of the existing stock namely:

a. Value for Money (VfM) b. Investment Requirements/opportunities.

21 Value for Money: The following paragraphs look at a number of statistics that

may be helpful in establishing value for money based upon cost and usage: 22 Net Expenditure: This figure is the net operating cost for the facility including

central support service costs but excluding depreciation (which is applied to service revenue accounts for total cost accurate purposes, but which is reversed out below the line in the overall General Fund). This statistic relates purely to the financial cost and gives no weighting to usage. It should also be noted that not all savings would be achievable initially and some may take some considerable time to realise (please see financial implications section for further detail). Central support service costs will be reviewed / reduced as a separate exercise under the MTFP and are outside Neighbourhood Services cash limit.

23 Annual Usage: This figure indicates the total number of visits the facility receives including group bookings for parties and functions. Use of these criteria provides some indication of the popularity of a centre albeit that this is given independent of both cost and the catchments’ information.

24 Cost Per User: This indicator is derived by comparing annual usage with the net expenditure and provides a better value for money assessment by indicating the cost of providing the service relative to those using it.

25 Investment Requirements: In the absence of full stock condition surveys,

which are not yet available, the investment requirements for each site have been assessed and graded as High, Medium or Low, based upon site knowledge and discussions with colleagues in Asset Management in Resources. The grading is based upon likely capital investment requirements in the short to medium term, whereby Low is less than £250K; Medium over £250K but less than £500k; High is over £500K indicating a greater likelihood of requiring urgent capital investment over the forthcoming MTFP period.

Sport England Facility Planning Model

26 For sports halls and swimming pools which are the key components of the “core offer”, Sport England has developed planning tools that analyse both supply and demand. These tools are the Facilities Planning Model (FPM) in respect of pools and halls and they have been used to assist the process of establishing an appropriate and adequate/average level of sports facility provision to meet the needs of communities in the County. The model assesses the capacity of existing facilities to meet demand taking account of how far people are prepared to travel to a facility. These tools have been used to support and assist in the analysis of the other sources of information referred to above. Officers have worked closely with colleagues at Sport England in determining the recommendation of this report.

Overall Findings / Assessment Strategic Context and Priorities for County

27 In order to direct development to the most sustainable locations a settlement hierarchy has been established for the County within the LDF. These are the places which have, or require, the largest range of facilities, where most of the new housing development over the period of the plan will be located and which will be the focus of transport routes and economic development activity. It is logical, therefore, that the principal sport and leisure facilities are located in proximity to these settlements, recognising that some of the existing facilities may currently be located in other areas.

28 The main towns that are identified in the LDF are:

Settlement Status Bishop Auckland Sub-regional Durham City Sub-regional Barnard Castle Main town Chester le Street Main town Consett Main town

Stanley Main town Peterlee Main town Seaham Main town Spennymoor Main town Newton Aycliffe Main town

29 It is worth noting that Durham City and Bishop Auckland are considered to have a sub regional role indicating their greater importance as a settlement to the County.

Service Access 30 Travel Time: Travel time is a good measure of the accessibility of services

as it can be used to assess the impact of changes in the facility stock, consider various options and identify gaps in provision. Whilst it is acknowledged that County Durham has areas of significant deprivation and low car ownership, travel by car accounts for a significant proportion of journeys to facilities. Travel time is a useful proxy measure to consider in establishing a future network of provision rather than make direct comparisons between sites.

31 The map at Appendix 2 identifies the current travel time of residents to their

nearest facility. Travel time is calculated using GIS software and considers average car speed for travel to a venue based on the classification of the roads on which the car or public will travel. Population is calculated using postcodes and a post code area is included if the central point within the postcode is within the specified drive time.

32 At present 97.3% of County Durham residents live within a 10 minute travel time of a leisure facility either provided by DCC, a community provider or a neighbouring local authority. A similar calculation using only ‘main settlement’ facilities, and those significant cross border facilities, shows 90% of Durham County residents within a 10 minute travel time of a facility; suggesting such a loss would result in only an additional 7.3% of the population falling outside 10 min travel time accessibility. Of those centres falling outside the main settlements Meadowfield has the greatest impact on travel time if retained at 4.7%.

33 Core Offer: The following sites currently provide the requirements of the core offer:

a. Belle Vue, Consett (this includes the Leisure Centre and swimming pool)

b. Freeman’s Quay, Durham City c. Louisa Centre, Stanley d. Newton Aycliffe Leisure Centre e. Peterlee Leisure Centre f. Spennymoor Leisure Centre g. Teesdale Leisure Centre, Barnard Castle

34 When compared to the main settlements, it is of note that Bishop Auckland,

one of only two towns in the County of sub-regional significance, does not have a facility that meets the Core Offer and as such represents a significant shortfall in provision. However, if the wet facility at Woodhouse Close in Bishop Auckland is paired with the dry side facility at Shildon (close neighbour) the requirement of the core offer can be considered to be met, albeit by utilising a slightly wider catchment area.

35 Similarly, although Chester le Street Leisure Centre does not have sports hall provision it is located in one of the larger towns in the County and has good

public transport links. Whilst the Centre requires substantial investment or replacement, the strategic location of the facility warrants its retention with a view to refurbishment or replacement in future years as resources become available. The centre at Seaham, whilst located within a main town, provides limited dry facilities.

36 Whilst not currently providing the core offer the facilities at Bishop Auckland, Seaham and Chester le Street are located within significant areas of population and have good public transport links. On this basis there is a strong case that these facilities are retained within the future portfolio.

Operational Considerations:

37 Value for Money: The following table sets out the cost per user of all facilities detailing facility type, cost and usage.

Facility Type of Facility: Wet (W) Dry (D)

Wet/Dry (W/D)

Net Expenditure

2010/11 £**

Annual Users

(2009/10)

Cost/User £

Coxhoe D 229,755 64,282 3.57

Glenholme W 308,068 93,165 3.31 Ferryhill D 335,599 103,339 3.25

Deerness D 210,952 68,561 3.08 Sherburn D 253,140 82,489 3.07

Woodhouse Close W 505,047 171,765 2.94 Meadowfield D 210,573 84,818 2.48 Seaham D 286,620 120,676 2.38*

Teesdale LC W/D 406,754 199,337 2.04 Louisa Centre, Stanley W/D 509,735 526,794 0.97*

Freeman’s Quay W/D 496,146 325,778 1.52 Belle Vue Leisure & Swim, Consett

W/D 537,559 583,456 0.92*

Spennymoor W/D 658,351 438,395 1.50

Abbey D 182,705 130,050 1.40 Chester-le-Street W 380,244 263,345 1.44 Newton Aycliffe W/D 532,085 444,767 1.20

Peterlee LC W/D 372,800 386,888 0.96* Shildon D 70,134 99,139 0.71

*NB – These centres are provided via third party contracts. ** Includes central support costs 38 As can be seen from the above table (Net Direct Expenditure column) the

most expensive facilities to provide are generally the larger sites with swimming pools. However, it should be noted that those sites with wet and dry provision generally have a lower cost per user ratio than stand-alone pools or dry sites only. On this basis it could be argued these sites represent better value for money. Pools generally have higher usage numbers, resulting in them having a lower net cost per user. There are some exceptions to this rule, as can be seen above, in particular Glenholme Pool which suffers from high cost but with low usage. This results in a poor value for money indicators of £3.31 net cost per user. Sherburn LC, Ferryhill LC, Coxhoe LC and

Deerness LC also represent poor value for money on this basis although overall cost is more acceptable.

39 Investment Requirements: The following table summarises the investment requirements of all facilities.

Facility Future Investment

Requirement

Comment

Abbey M Gym equipment requires replacement. Changing rooms & function suite updating

Belle Vue Leisure & Swim, Consett*

L Fully funded replacement budget within capital programme

Coxhoe M Gym equipment requires replacement. Drainage issues Changing rooms need updating Movement on artificial turf shock pad requires work

Chester – le -Street H Gym equipment requires replacement. Wet side changing requires significant refurbishment. Significant plant replacement. Reception needs upgrading.

Deerness M Gym equipment requires replacement. Ferryhill L Mechanical work required.

Competition Line gym improvements agreed for Nov 2011

Freeman’s Quay, Durham

L Building opened 2008

Glenholme, Crook H Pre-fab fitness building requires replacement. Gym equipment requires replacement. Plant replacement

Louisa Centre, Stanley* L Pool extension opened 2006 Meadowfield M Gym equipment requires replacement.

Boiler replacement required, changing facilities need updating and the squash court requires refurbishment.

Newton Aycliffe M Significant plant replacement is required. Fixed furniture replacement required.

Peterlee LC* L Pool refurbishment 2010 Seaham* L Some mechanical work required. Sherburn M Gym equipment requires replacement.

Boiler replacement required, changing facilities need updating

Spennymoor L Recent Pool roof refurbishment. Recent Arts Facility improvements. Competition Line Gym agreed for 2011

Shildon M Competition Line Gym improvements agreed for 2011 Electrics require upgrading and external areas improved

Teesdale LC L Exterior works required. Resurface access road.

Woodhouse Close H Gym equipment requires replacement. Pool plant requires replacement Customer changing and circulation areas require updating

* Managed under 3rd party contract.

Sport England Facility Planning Model (FPM): 40 If the Council was to utilise the Sport England data in determining which

facilities to consider for closure there are a number of key issues which emerge from the data, mainly that:

a. There is a generous/potentially an over-provision of sports halls in the County and that these are underutilised and have a distribution that is not ideal in terms of maximising usage and therefore participation in Sport and Leisure.

b. The County has an under-provision of swimming pools, which is evident in the high usage of the existing stock. There is also a small concern relating to the existing distribution.

41 In considering any potential reduction in the facility stock, the FPM evidence suggests that sports hall only provision should be prioritised for closure over sites with swimming pools. The Council currently provides 9 sports hall only sites. In adopting this approach the only concern would be the level of provision around the Durham City area given its large population. On this basis there is some justification to retaining Meadowfield. This site would be preferable due to the large catchment to the west of the facility, its provision of an artificial grass pitch as well as its contribution to meeting demand from Durham City.

42 Whilst generally there is an under supply of pools across the County this does not necessarily suggest they are located in the correct place and should be exempt for consideration for closure. On this basis, however, only Glenholme, due to its location and high water space per 1000 population in the former Wear Valley area, should be considered for closure.

Summary 43 Having considered all the above factors the table at the end of this section

summarises how each facility fairs against each of the criteria identified above. Each facility has been considered to either meet a requirement, or not, using the following parameters:

a. Strategic Context – facility is located within either a “main town” or a

city/town of sub-regional significance as described within the Local Development Framework.

b. Service Access – presently provides the “Core Offer” as defined in Section 18.

c. Operational Considerations: i) cost/user of less than £2.50; (ii) investment requirement of less than £250k.

d. Sport England Facility Planning Model – facility has a “swimming pool” or a “swimming pool and a sports hall”.

44 Using this approach those centres meeting three or more of the criteria are recommended for retention. These are:

Belle Vue Leisure & Swim 5 Chester le Street 3 Freeman’s Quay 5 Louisa Centre 5

Newton Aycliffe 4 Peterlee 5 Seaham 3 Spennymoor 5 Teesdale 5 Woodhouse Close 3

45 Of the remaining 8 sites, all met only one or none of the criteria with the

exception of Shildon which scores two; although only when considered as providing the ‘core offer’ in conjunction with Woodhouse Close. On this basis it is suggested that Shildon is also retained in order to ensure the ‘core offer’ is available to the sub-regional settlement of Bishop Auckland albeit utilising a wider catchment. In addition Shildon has a running track which would benefit the service as this type of provision is limited within the County.

46 In addition, a loss of sports halls to this degree would reduce provision within

Durham City to a level that may struggle to meet demand. It is, therefore, proposed that an additional dry facility around Durham should be retained to provide a more balanced stock of facilities. It is further proposed that the most appropriate site to achieve this would be Meadowfield. Despite comparing similar to all other remaining facilities against the criteria it has a number of specific features which point to its retention over other sites, namely: a. Accessible to large population to the west of the City. b. Has the greatest impact on percentage of the population within 10

minutes travel time of a facility if retained (4.7%). c. Reaches out to populations in the former Wear Valley area to its west. d. Is the only centre operating a full-size artificial grass pitch of which

there is a significant short-fall within the County. e. Whilst similar to some other centres proposed for closure Meadowfield

also operates a number of outdoor turf pitches and is the site of play provision.

47 On this basis it is also proposed that both Shildon Leisure Centre and

Meadowfield Leisure Centre are retained in addition to those listed in section 44.

48 The following table provides detail on all centres and clearly indicates those to be considered for consultation on closure.

Facility

Str

ate

gic

Co

nte

xt

Se

rvic

e A

cc

ess

Op

era

tio

nal

Co

nsid

era

tio

ns

Sp

ort

En

gla

nd

Fac

ilit

y P

lan

nin

g M

od

el

Comments

Reco

mm

en

de

d to

be s

ubje

ct to

consultation

re

ga

rdin

g p

ote

ntia

l clo

su

re

Co

st

pe

r u

se

r le

ss t

ha

n £

2.5

0+

In

ves

tme

nt

of

les

s t

han

£

25

0k+

ne

ed

ed

Abbey LC X X ���� X X Sports hall; squash; gym; outdoor facilities; multi-purpose room Similar provision to the nearby, newly built Freemans Quay LC

Belle Vue Leisure & Swim*

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� Sports hall; gym; squash; indoor bowls Pool Forms Core Offer Fully funded replacement within current capital programme Managed by Leisureworks

Chester le Street LC

���� X ���� X ���� Pool; squash; gym; indoor play; multi-purpose room Significant catchment area

Coxhoe LC X X X X X Sports hall; squash; gym; outdoor facilities; multi-purpose room

Deerness LC X X X X X Gymnastics centre; multi-sensory room; gym; multi-purpose room Possible re-provision via recycle of capital receipt

Ferryhill LC X X X ���� X Indoor bowls; gym; sports hall; nursery; multi-purpose room

Freemans Quay ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� Pool; gym; sports hall; studio; multi-purpose room New facility

Glenholme LC X X X X ���� Pool; gym (temporary provision); squash; outdoor facilities; multi-purpose room

Louisa Centre* ���� �������� ���� ���� ���� Pool (recent addition); sports hall; gym; indoor play; nursery; multi-purpose room Managed by Leisureworks

Meadowfield LC X X ���� X X Sports hall; squash; gym; outdoor facilities; including artificial pitch; multi-purpose room

Newton Aycliffe LC ���� ���� ���� X ���� Pool; gym; sports hall; indoor climbing; function facilities; multi-purpose room

Peterlee LC* ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� Pool; sports hall; gym; squash; multi-purpose room Recent pool tank re-tiling Managed by Leisure Connection

Seaham LC* ���� X ���� ���� X Sports hall; squash; gym; outdoor facilities Managed by Leisure Connection

Sherburn LC X X X X X Sports hall; squash; gym; outdoor facilities; multi-purpose room

Sunnydale & Shildon LC

X ���� ���� X X Sports hall; gym; indoor bowls; athletics track and pavilion; outdoor facilities; multi-purpose room Forms Core Offer with nearby Woodhouse Close LC School site/dual use

Spennymoor LC ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� Pool; gymnastics centre, boxing centre; arts centre; gym; sports hall; functions facilities; multi-purpose room

Teesdale LC ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� Pool; sports hall; gym; indoor climbing; indoor play; outdoor facilities; multi-purpose room

Woodhouse Close LC

���� ���� X X ���� Pool; indoor play; gym; multi-purpose room Forms Core Offer with nearby Sunnydale and Shildon LC

*Operated by 3rd party.

Future Provision 49 These proposals will be subject to a period of consultation with residents to

enable the identification of alternative options for consideration after consultation. If it is determined that these centres will no longer be run by the Council then this would leave the County with 11 indoor facilities (this accounts for Woodhouse Close and Shildon Leisure Centres and the two Consett sites being considered as single provision). In terms of the number of facilities per 1000 of population, this would rise from 25,900 to 44,823, which is more aligned with other North East Authorities (see table in section 8).

50 Despite a large number of centres being proposed for potential closure it

should be noted that whilst at present 97.3% of residents have a facility within 10 minutes travel time, this would only be reduced to 94.7% should all 6 proposed centres close. (The current and revised position is shown on the maps at Appendices 2 and 3 to this report.). This is a marginal reduction given the loss of 6 centres and suggests current provision is too high. Other local authorities with high population numbers per facility may utilise other providers such as the private sector, schools and community facilities. It is important that DCC also engages more with other providers to ensure access to sport and leisure facilities is maximised. This must form part of any longer term facility planning.

51 Essentially, the closure of the proposed centres would not only provide the

financial savings necessary to meet the MTFP requirements but also provide the County with a more appropriate facility stock through which to achieve the ambitions of the Sport and Leisure Service Strategy.

52 Whilst the approach adopted has focused upon providing a core offer across the main settlements this will leave the following as priorities moving forward within the remaining indoor facilities.

i) Single site provision in the Bishop Auckland/Shildon area. ii) Wet and dry provision in the Seaham area. iii) Single site provision in Consett (already funded). iv) Sports Hall provision within Chester le Street.

53 Whilst this report is focused upon realising savings, the process also provides

the opportunity to transform the service and provide modern strategically located facilities. In order to achieve this, the recycling of any potential capital receipts back into the service would be welcomed and allow the overall project to have a positive element. The Authority’s Acquisitions and Disposals Policy provides for this type of process and a more detailed business case for the retention of capital receipts will be developed, for consideration by the Member Officer Capital Working Group and Cabinet in due course, balanced against corporate priorities set out in the Council Plan and the wider investment needs of the remaining facilities and outcome of the detailed stock condition surveys currently underway. It is proposed that the consultation process should include a means of capturing the ideas and views of residents of how potentially this future investment should be developed.

54 A sustainable distribution and improved quality of indoor facilities will provide hubs of activity for all the family and community, which will contribute to

increased participation. However, these are just one part of the offer, and increasing participation across the county requires a more balanced use of resources. As outlined earlier, the overall approach of the new Sport and Leisure Service Strategy is to ensure that a greater emphasis is placed on the use of the outdoor environment and more targeted interventions, which are more able to engage hard to reach groups.

55 The future service provision will include increased support for voluntary and

community providers through whom more local and accessible opportunities in participation can be provided. In sport, this includes increasing the number of high quality clubs within communities and working with clubs to increase access, expanding membership, and link school participation to community settings. Supporting clubs includes, resource for new coaches to be trained, mentored and supported as active volunteers or professional coaches and officials

56 In physical activity, this includes a clear range of opportunities for all ages,

such as community legacy gyms, walks, cycle routes and sportsability clubs. The new sport and leisure structure also recognises the importance of mobile resources to reach specific neighbourhoods to tackle specific challenges, and an increased team of specialist staff to target those with health conditions. This is further supported by increased recognition of our natural and outdoor environment, to extend the range and choice of opportunities.

57 Increased emphasis on development also includes encouraging other major

providers to increase their offer critically, this includes providing advice and support for educational establishments to open their amenities sustainably. Supporting the University and Colleges to provide activities within their communities. Equally, supporting the voluntary sector to attract funds and develop local facilities and amenities in a shared and sustainable manner; will help increase access and re-shape the local sporting offer. Finally, increased resource to developmental activity, seeks to maximise external funding to the County, helping to support economic development during challenging times, and providing further opportunities to communities to take part and be involved in sport and physical activity.

58 Whilst a sustainable distribution and improved quality of indoor facilities

provides important family hubs, an increased focus on sports and leisure development is recognised as having a wider impact on hard to reach communities. Where an indoor facility is removed, this approach will be accentuated to support communities to access current and newly developed services, and in so doing, ensure an overall balanced distribution of opportunities. Consideration of future programmes will be determined by the equality profile of the residents within localities impacted through the rationalisation process.

Other Material Considerations 59 Equalities and Deprivation Impact: A full equality impact assessment has

been undertaken as part of this review and is attached at Appendix 4. This assessment has sought to identify the impacts to customers who make use of specific Leisure Centres that are to be subject to potential closure. This information is complex and varied as Leisure Centres not only deliver

activities, but also provide space for a wide range of local community uses. To capture details of the specific impact associated with closures, an audit of provision was conducted, specifically focusing on provision made to statutory equalities strands.

60 Through this, it is recognised that closure of local facilities may have a disproportionate impact on older and disabled people together with children and teenagers, as they may have to travel further to access leisure centres than previously and may have limited access to a car or public transport. The increased costs associated with accessing services incurred through transport may disproportionately affect these groups.

61 The proposals set out within this report will need to be considered closely against similar reviews taking place on other community buildings and services, where the same groups could be affected.

62 In order to ensure that comprehensive consideration has been given to this

issue, the review has used the latest data available on the levels of deprivation, as indicated by the Index of Deprivation in relation to the facility location, so that any potential detrimental impact on particularly vulnerable communities can be examined and the most vulnerable wards identified. All centres have been mapped against the most vulnerable wards and none of the main areas are affected by the proposals. The map at Appendix 5 shows the extent of those areas with high deprivation levels against the areas affected. As referenced earlier there will be an increased focus on sport and leisure development work within such areas, to support communities to access current and newly developed services, to ensure an overall balanced distribution of opportunities.

63 Exit Planning: In proposing facilities for closure the Council is recognising that it is not in a position to continue its financial support to these facilities. In doing so it is important that an exit strategy for each centre is developed. This may take two forms; in either the demolition of the buildings or disposal to a third party, identified through consultation, who is willing to operate the centre at no cost to the Authority. Consideration to each of these is given below.

a) Third Party Operation: Where possible it is hoped that third party

operators can be found to run and retain facilities. As part of the consultation process every effort will be made to identify and develop sustainable proposals for the future operation of the sites. This will include discussions, where appropriate, with Town and Parish Councils, voluntary organisations and sports clubs who express an interest. Such an approach would be in line with current ‘Big Society’ and ‘localism’ thinking.

b) Demolition and Disposal: For those sites which are ultimately

determine as surplus, and for which no third party operator can be identified, demolition and disposal of the site will be sought. Whilst demolition costs will vary based on the specific nature and scope of individual sites it is the intention to find these from the associated capital receipt. For those sites destined for demolition it will be imperative that demolition takes place as early as is possible in order to ensure the full value of the revenue saving is realised. All disposals

would follow the Authority’s ‘Acquisitions and Disposals Policy’ and a business case developed for consideration by the Member Officer Capital Working Group and Cabinet, to retain capital receipt resources for investment back into the remaining service.

64 Contractual and Disengagement Issues: The existing operation of sites

involves a number of contractual arrangements which the authority will need to disengage from should it wish to cease operating the facility. Whilst some of these are minor, vending contracts etc, of particular note are the contractual arrangements around the income-share contracts for gym provision at Ferryhill with Competition Line UK. Whilst it is difficult to undertake full negotiations at this stage preliminary discussions have taken place.

65 Competition Line UK have income-sharing agreements with six of the

Council’s directly managed sites and also provides services in partnership with Leisureworks in the Council’s facilities within the former Derwentside area. Most of the arrangements with the Council have a considerable time to run and the contract at Ferryhill runs until December 2024. These contacts are constructed around the capital investment provided by the company and there are obligations on the authority should they not complete the full term of the contract. However, given the authorities wider involvement with the company they are seen as being a long term partner. Initial discussions with Competition Line UK suggest that they would not wish to invoke penalties but look to novate these arrangements to an alternative site. Such a move would be welcomed by Sport and Leisure Services who as a separate issue are seeking to establish a single provider across the County as part of its consistent core offer development. Initial discussions with colleagues in procurement suggest that such an arrangement may be acceptable although further investigations are required.

66 Significant Club Activity: Whilst Deerness Leisure Centre has been considered on the same basis as all other facilities, it is recognised that the nature of the centre’s usage, predominantly as a gymnastics centre, presents a different proposition in terms of consultation. All the centres proposed for consultation have successful clubs operating from them, whilst all these clubs will be consulted, the scale and nature of usage at Deerness is such that a range of options unlikely to be possible at other sites will need to be considered.

67 Deerness Gymnastics Club have had success at a regional, national and international level and have not only provided County Durham athletes with the opportunity to compete at all levels but have been fantastic ambassadors for Durham and the region.

68 In line with the other facilities which strongly support club activity, any consultation relating to Deerness Leisure Centre will focus around how the Club can continue to operate. There are a number of options that can be explored during the consultation process which whilst allowing the Club to continue their operation, also achieve the desired saving. These include allowing the Club to operate the centre and the potential of recycling capital receipts to provide facilities for the club at one of the retained centres.

Financial Implications

69 If, following consultation, the 6 facilities identified below were closed, the financial savings would be as follows:

Facility Revenue Budget 2010-11

Less Central Support Costs

Less Capital

Charges

Net Saving

£ £ £ £

Abbey 232,674 82,677 49,969 100,028

Coxhoe 274,627 76,974 44,872 152,781

Deerness 261,989 73,265 51,037 137,687

Ferryhill 477,577 56,105 141,978 279,494

Glenholme 373,469 49,053 65,401 259,015

Sherburn 287,401 77,391 34,261 175,749

TOTAL 1,907,737 415,465 387,518 1,104,754

70 The identified saving of £1.105m is £7k over the required saving identified

within the MTFP. There are, however, a number of costs associated with the sites which, in the short to medium term, (and until the site is either disposed of or the facility is demolished) would continue to be incurred by the Council. There would also be some one-off costs associated with the securing of these sites following closure.

Potential of Savings £M £M

Budget book value of proposed centres

1.105

One off – costs Mothballing

0.060

On-going Revenue costs NNDR @ 100% Building maintenance @ 20% of current budget

0.161 0.016

Security costs @ £17 per visit Fire and Alarm maintenance

0.038 0.050

Total 0.325 Net value of saving in 2011/12 0.780

71 As can be seen from the above table, the potential annual saving of £1.105m is reduced to £0.780m after taking account of a range of costs. Whilst within the first year there would be a three month exemption period on NNDR this will be mitigated by the one off costs associated with initially securing the buildings. As a result the on-going revenue saving is estimated to remain stable at circa £0.780m, whilst all buildings remain in situ and/or in the ownership of the authority. This would leave a shortfall of £0.318m against the assumed savings in the MTFP. It is anticipated that the saving will grow back towards £1.105m over a period of time as sites are either disposed of or demolished. If a decision is subsequently made to close these facilities work will commence immediately to market the sites and / or make arrangements to otherwise dispose of / potentially demolish the buildings in order to realise the full potential savings.

72 As noted earlier in the report, the achievement of efficiencies relating to central support costs have not been accounted for as this is subject to separate MTFP proposals.

73 Demolition costs, where deemed necessary, could be taken from the capital receipt at the time of disposal via a bid for capital resources within the MTFP helping to release on-going costs of the mothballed site. This would form part of the business case for utilisation of potential capital receipts, to be considered by the Member Officer Capital Working Group and Cabinet in due course.

74 Given the criteria applied in determining which centres are to be considered for closure, achieving the specific figure required as a saving is difficult. A change in criteria or the arbitrary removal of one centre would reduce the saving further. Therefore, if there is to be any opportunity to achieve the desired level of saving all 6 proposed centres must be considered. In the long term, however, the saving is likely to increase beyond that currently required.

Consultation 75 As identified through the equality and diversity impact assessment and also

through the audit of the facilities themselves, there are many stakeholders potentially impacted by the potential closure of these facilities. It is important therefore that a period of consultation is entered into before any final decision is made on the future of these facilities. A consultation plan has therefore been developed to ensure that users of the facilities, residents, partner organisations and other key stakeholders are given the opportunity to put forward any alternative options to closure during a 12 week consultation period.

76 It is important in any consultation that the Council is clear about what it is consulting key stakeholders on. In terms of the review of indoor facilities, the Council will be seeking two key outcomes as a result of carrying out the consultation process. Firstly, the consultation will seek views and comments in relation to the proposal to close the 6 leisure centres, and the potential impact on communities. Secondly, this period will be used to offer the opportunity for any individual group or business to put forward a viable alternative option to closure of facilities. Support for this process will be provided in accordance with the Council’s agreed mechanisms, but initially channelled through the project team assigned to this review within the sport and leisure service.

77 The consultation process will be tailored to ensure that those particularly impacted by the proposals are provided an opportunity to put their views forward in terms of the two outcomes identified above. In order to achieve this, a range of mechanisms will be used in terms of online and written surveys, public meetings, use of the AAP’s, Town and Parish Council network and partner arrangements.

78 The consultation will run for a period of 3 months, from the date of the Cabinet approval of this report and both a consultation and communications plan has been developed to effectively manage this process. The consultation will be publicised through information in all leisure centres, through press and media coverage, letters to stakeholders and a link on the Council’s website. Sport England, Area Action Partnerships, County Durham Association of Local Councils and other significant partners will also be given the opportunity to discuss the proposals in detail. Community groups and associations who may have an interest in discussing new community models with the County Council will be encouraged to develop sustainable proposals for further discussions. A full consultation plan has been developed in relation to this project and will be available on request or via the Members’ Library.

79 The outcome of this consultation process will then be brought back for Members’ consideration before any final decisions are made on the future of these facilities.

HR Implications 80 There is a requirement to make a £3.5M reduction in the Sport and Leisure

revenue budget over the next four years with £1.46M falling in year 1 with proposals to meet this including a saving of £1,098,100 from indoor facilities. The size and scale of the required reductions mean this is unachievable without impact upon the current staffing establishment.

81 The year 1 profiling of the total required reduction within the MTFP places

significant challenges on the service and therefore necessitates a target date for commencement of the saving as October 2011.

82 The consultative requirements currently set at 3 months consultation, and

where necessary, notice periods which could extend to a further 3 months necessitates the issuing of S188’s to all indoor facilities employees on the 5th April 2011.

83 Should the public consultation support the rationale outlined for proposing the

centres for closure there will be a reduction in headcount of 61.14 FTE from a total staffing establishment of 196.59 FTE.

84 Should the public consultation change the proposals made by the Service the

reduction of FTE would be subject to change, however the Service are able to confirm that only those employees in centres which, following the public consultation are confirmed to close, will be at risk of redundancy.

85 The Service will also undergo a restructure of the current Indoor Facilities

Management Team reducing the current establishment of 54 FTE management roles down to 33 FTE via a recruitment exercise (Please note these figures are included in the overall reductions and establishment figures contained in paragraph 81). The roles currently occupied by these employees do not have any centre specific nature to them and therefore are not directly affected by which centres may be subject to closure following the public consultation exercise.

86 As part of the process the Service will consider any requests for ERVR raised

during the consultation, consider suitable alternative employment opportunities and will, in addition, be reviewing the expressions of interest received within Sport & Leisure as part of the Council wide ERVR exercise in an effort to minimise the impact of these proposals on employees.

87 Casual workers have not been included within the scope of this report.

However there will be some workers who have acquired employment rights equal to that of an employee and will need to be included in the formal consultation process of this proposal. Further work will be required to ascertain which individuals are affected and this will be established prior to formal consultation commencing on 4th April 2011.

88 A detailed project plan has been developed in order to manage the consultation and potential implementation implications of the report. This will be used to project manage the process and ensure all appropriate actions are taken. This plan will be shared with the TUs by the Reorganisation Support Team on 4th April 2011 and with staff affected on 5th April 2011.

89 Employees within all indoor facilities will receive a briefing on the proposals

contained within this report and Trades Unions will also receive communications directing to this report on 23 February 2011.

Conclusions 90 It is appreciated that the proposals contained within this report, if agreed,

would bring about a significant change to services and will be a challenging decision. Whilst it is recognised that the timing of this report has been dictated by the Council’s medium term financial planning demands, Members may wish to note that the changes proposed are in line with the County’s Sport and Leisure Strategy. In selecting the facilities to be consulted on for closure officers have developed as scientific, or objective, approach as the process allowed. Furthermore, the proposal sets out how other sport and leisure services will be deployed to mitigate the impact both generally and specifically to more vulnerable sections of the community impacted on by a withdrawal of services.

91 In bringing these proposals forward the service has considered a range of

ways in which to achieve the level of saving required. In order to meet this requirement the service will also be proposing a range of additional saving around management options, staffing structures and other cost reducing initiatives. Given, however, the large proportion of costs associated with indoor facilities it would not be possible to achieve the saving without some impact on this service area.

92 By focusing on the development of a ‘core offer’ located within the County’s

main settlements, maximising transport networks and other infrastructure, these proposals will provide both the required level of savings while establishing a framework of provision across the County that together with other Sport and Leisure Services is capable of providing an appropriate and consistent service offer.

Recommendations and Reasons

93 It is recommended that:

i) Members authorise consultation on a proposal to close the following centres:

a Abbey Leisure Centre b Coxhoe Leisure Centre c Deerness Leisure Centre d Ferryhill Leisure Centre e Glenholme Leisure Centre f Sherburn Leisure Centre

ii) The Head of Sport and Leisure prepares a further report for Cabinet on the outcome of the consultation and taking it into account, makes recommendations in relation to the centres.

Background Documents

• Durham County Sport and Leisure Service Strategy 2011-2014

• County Durham Plan: Planning for the Future of County Durham (June 2010)

• Durham County Council Corporate Plan

• Sustainable Community Strategy for County Durham 2010-2030

• County Durham Sub-Regional Facility Study 2009

• Sport England Facility Planning Modelling Data 2011

Contact: Stephen Howell, Head of Sport & Leisure – tel: 0191 372 9178

Appendix 1: Implications Finance The financial savings should the facilities identified for consultation on closure be actually closed are shown in the main text of the report paragraphs 69 – 74. All proposals contained in this report are for consultation and as such it is not possible to provide redundancy costs at this stage, as it will be necessary to undertake a recruitment and selection process to identify which members of staff may be made redundant. These one-off costs would be fully recovered by the Strategic Reserve. Staffing There are 197 staff potentially affected (61 at risk of redundancy) by the proposals contained within this report. Should the consultation lead to subsequent closure of facilities, redeployment opportunities within the council will need to be addressed during the implementation phase. A list of all staff affected by these proposals has been identified. Human resources have been fully consulted on this process and the timelines allow for a full consultation process Risk A risk assessment for the proposed closures and project management of achieving the closure in the required timescale has been undertaken the key risks are summarised as follows:

• Reputational issues, the Council is at risk through negative PR and will need to manage communications effectively. A marketing and communications plan has been developed to mitigate this risk.

• Failure to meet MTFP deadlines, the MTFP requires savings to take effect from October 2011 a project plan. A project board have been developed in order to meet this target.

• Risk of Challenge – there may be community groups and/or individuals who challenge these decisions, although the service is non-statutory legal advice has been taken and an equalities impact assessment together with action plan developed.

• Employee relationship issues may arise as part of this process it will be necessary to work within Council policy and procedures in order to reduce risk of litigation. The marketing and communications plan also covers communications with staff.

Equality and Diversity Equality impact assessment has been undertaken and is attached as Appendix 5 to this report. Accommodation The surplus facilities will be dealt with under guidelines set out within the Councils Disposal and Acquisition Strategy. It is anticipated that any sites to be deemed surplus would be marketed immediately and disposal / demolition plans put in place. Any capital receipts arising from the disposal of these sites would be ‘bid for’ by Sport and Leisure for re-investment in the remaining facilities and / or the priorities for new investment highlighted in the report.

Crime and Disorder Security of sites will be an issue however costs have been accounted for within the text of the report. Reduction of local facilities may have local impact on youth nuisance figures and therefore close work with Community Safety Team will be essential to mitigate the impact on local communities. Human Rights No direct implications Consultation Consultation with staff, service users and key stakeholders will be carried out as in the main text of the report Procurement There will be a range of procurement issues to resolve in relation to contracts for each specific site facing closure. A comprehensive list of all contracts per site has been compiled and consultation with contractors will form part of the consultation process. Disability Discrimination Act The main text of the report identifies that people with disabilities along with children and teenagers will be disproportionally affected by these closures. The equalities impact assessment will set out measures to mitigate this impact through the targeting of services. Legal Implications The provision of indoor Sport and leisure facilities is a non statutory service. However, contracts are in place at Ferryhill Leisure Centre with Competition Line UK for a period of 14 years, legal negotiations will need to be undertaken regarding this contract.

Appendix 2: Map Current Travel Times

Appendix 3: Proposed Travel Times

Appendix 4: Equality Impact Assessment

Appendix 5: Deprivation Areas within Catchments