appendix 1: fmg business case · 1.5 the location of the proposed new leisure centre is in...

Appendix 1: FMG Business Case

This page is intentionally left blank

A B

ALL

A

A F

BY

FM

18t

BUSINESS

LERDALE

FINAL RE

MG CONSU

th Octobe

S CASE FO

E BOROUG

PORT

ULTING L

er 2013

OR THE N

GH COUN

LTD

NEW LEIS

NCIL

SURE CENNTRE IN WWORKING

GTON

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

Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 1

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.


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.


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.


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.


Table 2.1 Comparison with Sport England KPI

Allerdale North West England

KPI1 – 3x30 Physical Activity per week

13.2% 17.1% 16.3%

KPI2 - Volunteering at least one hour a week 10.4% 7.0% 7.3%

KPI3 - Club Membership in the last 4 weeks

22.7% 23.1% 23.3%

KPI4 – Received tuition / coaching in last 12 months

13.8% 14.9% 16.2%

KPI5 - Took part in organised competition in last 12 months

14.8% 14.1% 14.3%

Above regional and national averages

Above national average but not regional average

Below regional and 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.


Table 2.2 - Trends for Allerdale in Sport England KPI

Indicator 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

KPI1 - 3x30 Physical Activity per week observed

14.4% 16.7% 17.2% 13.2%

KPI2 - Volunteering at least one hour a week 4.3% 6.8% 7.4% 10.4%

KPI3 – Club Membership in the last 4 weeks

19.9% 23.6% 19.1% 22.7%

KPI4 – Received tuition / coaching in last 12 months

14.6% 15.6% 15.8% 13.8%

KPI5 - Took part in organised competition in last 12 months

11.2% 12.7% 12.6% 14.8%

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.


Map 2.1 Map of Workington locating the current and proposed site

2.19 The key is shown below:

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

Proposed Brow Top Site

Workington Leisure Centre


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 (Miles) 0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total

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 (Miles) 0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total

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.


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 (Minutes) 0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total

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 (Minutes)

0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total

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.


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 (Miles)

0-14 15-24 25-39 40-59 60-79 80+ Total

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


Table 2.8 Market Segmentation Analysis for Brow Top and Adjacent Land in a 1 mile radius catchment

Segment Name Age band

Catchment Catchment %

England % Preferred Activities

1 – Competitive Male (Urban) Ben 18 – 26 390 3.3% 4.9% High intensity activities, weight lifting, competitive court games and technical sports

2 – Team Drinker Jamie 18 –25 774 6.5% 5.5% Team sports (e.g. football), combat sports and weight training

3 – Fitness Class Friend Chloe 18 – 25 210 1.8% 4.7% Exercise classes, individual activities, team games, swimming and gym

4 – Supportive Single Leanne 18 –25 595 5.0% 4.3% Social activities, swimming and keep fit classes

5 – Career Focused Female Helena 26 – 35 406 3.4% 4.5% Very active, keep fit and gym related activities, winter sports and swimming and likely to have private gym membership

6 – Settling Down Male Tim 26 – 35 427 3.6% 8.8%

Very active, technical sports, skiing, water sports, team games, individual activities, personal fitness and likely to have private gym membership

7 – Stay at Home Mums Alison 36 – 45 142 1.2% 4.4% Keep fit classes, racquet sports, swimming and likely to have private gym membership

8 – Middle England Mum Jackie 36 -45 831 7.0% 4.9% Visiting leisure facilities for swimming and may take children bowling or ice skating

9 – Pub League Kev 36 -45 1,011 8.6% 5.9% Team sports, football, combat sports, low intensity social activities (e.g. darts)

10 – Stretched Single Mum Paula 26 -35 385 3.3% 3.7% Social activities, 10 pin bowling and low intensity

Report for Proposed New Workington Leisure Centre 12 12


Catchment Catchment

% England % Preferred Activities

11 – Comfortable Mid Life Male Philip* 46 – 55 1,058 9.0% 8.6%

Team sports, racquet sports, technical sports, fitness club member and competitive sports

12 – Empty Nest Career Ladies Elaine* 46 – 55 663 5.6% 6.1% Swimming, exercise classes, gym and walking

13 – Early Retirement Couples Roger & Joy*

56 – 65 590 5.0% 6.8% Walking, swimming, table tennis, golf and keep fit classes.

14 – Older Working Female Brenda 46 -65 1,019 8.6% 4.9% Swimming, walking, keep fit and cycling

15 – Local Old Boy Terry 56 -65 710 6.0% 3.7% Low intensity, walking, fishing, darts and pool

16 – Later life Woman Norma 56 -65 384 3.2% 2.1% Walking and low intensity activities

17 – Comfortable Retired Couples

Ralph & Phyllis

65+ 100 0.8% 4.2% Swimming, fishing, golf, lower intensity and bowls

18 – Twilight Year Man Frank* 66+ 746 6.3% 4.0% Individual and peer activities, walking, bowls, golf, darts, pool, swimming

19 – Retirement Home Single Elsie & Arnold*

66+ 1,379 11.8% 8.0% Low intensity, bowls, walking and dancing

2.34 It can be seen that the prevalent segments in the catchment district are 8, 9, 11, 14 and 19. These groups preferred activities include; team sports, health and fitness, low intensity activities, swimming and walking. We note the key segments 1 to 6 who have a higher propensity to participate are not included in the top 5.

2.35 One of the key issues in this segmentation analysis is that in terms of the main income drivers for sport and leisure facilities, which are health and fitness memberships and swimming. Segments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and possibly 14 are more likely to utilise gym and exercise facilities. As can be seen, the catchment identifies only Brenda (segment 14) as prevalent segments in the catchment. In addition, only segment 4, Leanne, is above the national average. This is worrying in terms of health and fitness participation, and therefore the pricing and programming at the centre for the health and fitness suite will become a very important issue.


2.36 In terms of swimming segments 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 state that this is a preferred activity but the segments 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, are more likely to use the pools as a secondary facility alongside their gym membership or exercise classes. Therefore 13, 14, 17 and 18 are likely to use the pools as a primary visit, and only Brenda (segment 14) is a prevalent segment in the borough. However, segment 18, Frank is not a prevalent segment but is above the national average and enjoys swimming.

2.37 The table below details the 1 mile catchment around the Workington Leisure Centre

Table 2.9 Market Segmentation Analysis for Workington Leisure Centre in a 1 mile (1.6KM) catchment


Catchment Catchment %


1 – Competitive Male (Urban) Ben 18 – 26 251 2.2% 4.9% High intensity activities, weight lifting, competitive court games and technical sports

2 – Team Drinker Jamie 18 –25 563 4.8% 5.5% Team sports (e.g. football), combat sports and weight training

3 – Fitness Class Friend Chloe 18 – 25 189 1.6% 4.7% Exercise classes, individual activities, team games, swimming and gym

4 – Supportive Single Leanne 18 –25 422 3.6% 4.3% Social activities, swimming and keep fit classes

5 – Career Focused Female Helena 26 – 35 287 2.5% 4.5% Very active, keep fit and gym related activities, winter sports and swimming and likely to have private gym membership

6 – Settling Down Male Tim 26 – 35 395 3.4% 8.8%

Very active, technical sports, skiing, water sports, team games, individual activities, personal fitness and likely to have private gym membership

7 – Stay at Home Mums Alison 36 – 45 140 1.2% 4.4% Keep fit classes, racquet sports, swimming and likely to have private gym membership

8 – Middle England Mum Jackie 36 -45 493 4.2% 4.9% Visiting leisure facilities for swimming and may take children bowling or ice skating



Catchment Catchment

% England % Preferred Activities

9 – Pub League Kev 36 -45 1,090 9.4% 5.9% Team sports, football, combat sports, low intensity social activities (e.g. darts)

10 – Stretched Single Mum Paula 26 -35 886 7.6% 3.7% Social activities, 10 pin bowling and low intensity

11 – Comfortable Mid Life Male Philip* 46 – 55 781 6.7% 8.6%

Team sports, racquet sports, technical sports, fitness club member and competitive sports

12 – Empty Nest Career Ladies Elaine* 46 – 55 537 4.6% 6.1% Swimming, exercise classes, gym and walking

13 – Early Retirement Couples Roger & Joy*

56 – 65 583 5.0% 6.8% Walking, swimming, table tennis, golf and keep fit classes.

14 – Older Working Female Brenda 46 -65 1,122 9.6% 4.9% Swimming, walking, keep fit and cycling

15 – Local Old Boy Terry 56 -65 939 8.2% 3.7% Low intensity, walking, fishing, darts and pool

16 – Later life Woman Norma 56 -65 583 5.0% 2.1% Walking and low intensity activities

17 – Comfortable Retired Couples

Ralph & Phyllis

65+ 68 0.6% 4.2% Swimming, fishing, golf, lower intensity and bowls

18 – Twilight Year Man Frank* 66+ 697 6.0% 4.0% Individual and peer activities, walking, bowls, golf, darts, pool, swimming


66+ 1,603 13.8% 8.0% Low intensity, bowls, walking and dancing

2.38 It can be seen that the prevalent segments in the catchment district are 9, 10, 14, 15 and 19. These groups preferred activities include; team sports, social activities, low intensity activities, swimming and walking. In regards to utilising gym and exercise facilities, the catchment also only identifies Brenda (segment 14) as prevalent segments in the catchment, with no other segments


above the national average that have propensity for health and fitness. In terms of swimming segments likely to use the pools as a primary visit, again only Brenda (segment 14) is a prevalent segment in the catchment. However, segment 18, Frank is not a prevalent segment but is above the national average.

2.39 In summary, in both catchments, the prevalent segments (with highest in green) are as follows:

Table 2.10 – Summary of Prevalent Segments in Catchments


Brow Top Catchment

%

Existing Leisure Centre

Catchment %


8 – Middle England Mum Jackie 36 -45 7.0% 4.2% 4.9% Visiting leisure facilities for swimming and may take children bowling or ice skating

9 – Pub League Kev 36 -45 8.6% 9.4% 5.9% Team sports, football, combat sports, low intensity social activities (e.g. darts)

10 – Stretched Single Mum Paula 26 -35 3.3% 7.6% 3.7% Social activities, 10 pin bowling and low intensity

11 – Comfortable Mid Life Male

Philip* 46 – 55 9.0% 6.7% 8.6% Team sports, racquet sports, technical sports, fitness club member and competitive sports

14 – Older Working Female Brenda 46 -65 8.6% 9.6% 4.9% Swimming, walking, keep fit and cycling

15 – Local Old Boy Terry 56 -65 6.0% 8.2% 3.7% Low intensity, walking, fishing, darts and pool


66+ 11.8% 13.8% 8.0% Low intensity, bowls, walking and dancing


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

Health Brow Top Site (St

Michael’s)

Brow Top Site (St John’s)

Brow Top Site %

Leisure Centre (Moor-close)


(Moss Bay)

Workington Leisure

Centre %

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%


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


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%).


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

Facilities Current Workington Leisure Centre

Proposed Workington Leisure Centre

Sports Hall 4 courts 4 courts

Health and Fitness Gym 50 stations (extending to 75) 100 stations plus kids gym

Studio Yes Spinning 2 multi-purpose studios (also meeting rooms)

Main Pool 6 lane x 25m 8 lane x 25m, dismountable

floor

Learner Pool Yes Yes

Spectator Seating 150 seats on balcony 100 seats

Squash Courts 4 courts (3 in use) 2 courts

Dry Changing Yes individual male and female

Yes individual male and female

Wet Changing Yes individual male and female

Yes individual male and female


Facilities Current Workington Leisure Centre

Proposed Workington Leisure Centre

Catering Service Cafe, bar and vending Cafe, bar and catering 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)

3G Facility N/A

6 x 6-a-side pitches and 1 UEFA standard 3G training

pitch – floodlit (154m x 80m maximum to accommodate

multi-sports)

Boxing Gym Yes No

Meeting Rooms 2 Rooms (1 after gym

extension) No - moved to multi-purpose

dance studios

Activity Hall 2 courts/Studio No

All Weather Space Yes hard surface - size of 2 pitches

See 3G football facility

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).


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.


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

Site Postcode Distance (Miles)

Distance (Minutes)

Details

Netherhall Community Sports Centre

CA15 6NT 5.9 8

4 lane 18m pool. Pay and Play/Sports Club and

Community Association/Private Use

(Part of a School)



Distance (Minutes)

Details

Cockermouth Leisure Centre CA13 9JR 9.3 16 4 lane 25m pool. Pay and

Play

Copeland Swimming Pool, Whitehaven CA28 8RW 10.3 17

6 lane 25m pool and learner pool. Pay and

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.


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.


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

Population Workington 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


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


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 (Minutes)

Details

Stainburn School and Science College CA14 4EB 1.5 2

Sports Club/Community

Association. 4 courts.

Southfield Technology College CA14 5BH 2.4 6


Association. 4 Courts

Lakes College (West Cumbria) CA14 4JN 3.4 6


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.


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.


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.


Table 4.4 Supply of Soft Play with a 20 minute catchment of the centre of town


Distance (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, Cockermouth

CA13 9RH 9.7 14

Jungle Jack's, Whitehaven CA28 7SJ 8.9 14

Chicos Play Centre, Whitehaven CA28 7HZ 8.9 15

Billy Bears Fun Centre, Whitehaven

CA28 9AN 9.6 17

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.


Table 4.5 Child Population in Catchment

Workington Catchment

1 Child

Workington Catchment 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


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

Site Postcode Type Distance (Miles)

Distance (Minutes)

Details

St Joseph’s Catholic High School

CA14 3EE Sand 1 3

Sports Club/Community Association. 34m x 52m, floodlit.

Grasslot Welfare Sports and Social Club

CA15 8DD Sand 5.2 7

Sports Club/Community Association. 18m x 35m, floodlit.

Netherhall Community Sports Centre

CA15 6NT 3G 5.9 8


Association. 65x100m, floodlit.

Whitehaven AFC

CA28 9DB 3G 9.4 16 Pay and Play. 60x100m, floodlit.

Cockermouth School CA13 9HF Sand 9.6 17

Sports Club/Community Association. 60 x 100m, floodlit.

Cumbria Sports Academy CA28 8SD 3G 10 17

Pay and Play and Sports

Club/Community Association. 30 x

80m, floodlit

St Benedict's Rugby Union Football Club

CA28 9SH 3G 10.3 19

Sports Club/Community Association. 60 x 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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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

4.114 In addition, the table below shows the current facilities at each of the spas in the catchment.

Type Name Postcode Distance (Miles)

Distance (Minutes)

Hotel Caesar's at Washington Central Hotel, Workington

CA14 3AY 0.6 2

Hotel Armathwaite Hall Country House Hotel, Keswick

CA12 4RE 15.8 24

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


Table 4.9 Current facilities in the local competition

Facility Caesar’s Armathwaite

Hall Oxley’s

Underscar Lodore Falls Bannatyne

Spa DreamDays Rothay Garden

Daffodil Hotel

Wordsworth Hotel North Lakes

Oxley’s Ambleside

Aroma Room

Gym

Hydrotherapy Pool

Ice Fountain

Infrared Loungers

Monsoon Showers

Mud Rasal Room

Rain Dance Shower

Relaxation Area

Restaurant/Food and Drinks Area


Facility Caesar’s Armathwaite

Hall Oxley’s

Underscar Lodore Falls Bannatyne

Spa DreamDays Rothay Garden

Daffodil Hotel

Wordsworth Hotel North Lakes

Oxley’s Ambleside

Sauna (All types)

Saunarium

Solarium/Sun Beds

Spa Pool/Jacuzzi/Hot Tub

Steam Room

Swimming Pool (Indoor)

Swimming Pool (Outdoor)

Treatment Rooms

Tropical Shower/Rain

Water Beds


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.


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

Swimming Pool

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 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 members. After analysis of the demographics, the population 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.

Dance Studios

Given the increase in memberships and growth in classes we recommend a 200m studio with moving wall to allow for 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.



Sports Hall

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 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.

Squash

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 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.

Soft Play

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 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.

3G STP Pitches

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 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.

Climbing

The plans for the proposed new leisure centre include a 2 storey climbing wall. After analysing the demographics and the population and potential return, we recommend that a small climbing wall should be included in the proposed facility mix.



Health Suite

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 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.

Catering

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 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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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)


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




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.


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%.


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.


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.


Business Plan

7.6 A summary of the projected profit and loss is shown overleaf and has been extracted from the Business Plan model.


Figure 7.1 – Summary of Profit and Loss Account

*assumes town centre site, and at Moorclose potential income lost of 10% would resulted in a net operating cost rather than projected surplus.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY

INCOME

Dry side 74,944 79,108 83,272 83,272 83,272Squash Courts 8,000 8,400 8,820 8,820 8,820Health Suite 12,500 13,750 15,125 15,125 15,125Health and Fitness 354,708 382,468 401,362 410,227 410,227Swimming 225,029 236,873 248,716 248,716 248,716STP 61,352 61,352 61,352 61,352 61,352Rentals 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Café and Retail 97,839 103,508 108,027 109,182 109,182

TOTAL INCOME 854,373 905,458 946,675 956,694 956,694

EXPENDITURE

Staffing CostsSalaries and Wages 568,108 568,108 568,108 568,108 568,108

PremisesUtilities 158,545 158,545 158,545 158,545 158,545Repairs and Maintenance 40,842 40,842 40,842 68,070 68,070Grounds Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0Cleaning 7,009 7,009 7,009 7,009 7,009National Non-Domestic Rates 0 0 0 0 0Life-Cycle Costs 0 0 0 0 0Total 206,395 206,395 206,395 233,623 233,623

Advertising & Marketing 15,000 0 0 0 0

AdministrationInsurances 0 0 0 0 0Printing, Postage and Stationery 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500IT (telephones / software / licences / website) 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000Admin and Finance 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Other supplies and sundry items 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Total 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500

Cost of SalesCafé and Retail 44,028 46,578 48,612 49,132 49,132

Central Costs, Overheads and ProfitCentral Costs 0 0 0 0 0Irrecoverable VAT 0 0 0 0 0Contingency / Profit 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 0

Total Expenditure 862,031 849,581 851,615 879,363 879,363

3 4

1 2 3 4

Allerdale Borough Council

New Workington Leisure Centre

NET OPERATING COST/(SURPLUS) 7,657 (55,877) (95,059)

5

(77,331)

YEARS

YEARS

1 2

(77,331)

5


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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

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.

All £ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5New 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


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.


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.


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)


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


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.


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


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 Contract

Disadvantages of the Traditional Build Contract

control over design process direct reporting of design

team to the Council to ensure quality control

Council achieves the design it requires

minimum design changes post contractor appointment

lower financial risk to the Council as price based upon completed drawings and detailed specification, etc.

The Council will know the cost before the construction commences

no built in contractor risk premium

no one person is responsible for the design and construction together

design needs to be developed as fully as possible before tendering

time/cost more likely to escalate as design is finalised by the Council

procurement process is lengthy as the design development and tender process is sequential

hard to build relationship with the Contractor as they are appointed towards the end of the procurement process

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


Advantages of the Traditional Build Contract

Disadvantages of the Traditional Build 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


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 contractor

improved cost certainty single source responsibility

most effective in managing risks

conflicts between design and construction are design contractor’s responsibility

contractor is simultaneously estimating construction costs during design

decision to proceed with project is made with firm knowledge of the final cost and scope of work

design and construction works as a team (post novation)

design and construction can be overlapped resulting in time savings and cost savings

materials and long lead items can be procured early on in the process

earlier occupancy of completed facility

the initial price may be higher as the contractor may build into his price a 'risk premium (can be mitigated by two stage process)

post-contract variations by the Council can be more expensive

the Council has less control and influence over design matters

if the Council does not have a firm and robust set of client's requirements it may be given a design that does not meet its aspirations

contractor may be driven by price rather than by design standards

there is the potential of dual loyalties of a novated architect

quality can be an issue because of the lack of control that the client has over the architect (can be mitigated by 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


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 output specification leaving

the bidders to sort out the optimum solution

the final operational & capital cost will be known before any work is started

consortia will provide their optimum facility mix balancing capital costs and operating costs

fixed sum agreed for the new facility including fixtures, fittings & equipment (FF&E) on signing contract

the Council will need to appoint a full monitoring & compliance team

could result in higher initial capital costs, should the operator seek to reduce the lifecycle and operating costs over the operational period by way of upfront investment (whole life costing) – although this is mitigated by the long-term operational efficiency

the Council have limited control over the design or layout of the facility, other


Advantages of the DBOM Contract Disadvantages of the DBOM Contract

Operator is able to input into design, finishes and life cycle costs

should result in optimum whole-life costing, balancing capital and operational / lifecycle costs

consortia develop scheme linked to the Council output specification

transfer of most of the operation and construction risk, once contract agreed

than via their specification and planning / building control requirements

the Council’s flexibility to appoint its preferred partners is more limited – for example, the preferred constructor and operator may be in different consortia, thus limiting the Council’s ability to achieve its optimum partnership solution

requiring consortia bids may 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.


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 Agreement

Disadvantages of the Framework Agreement

No prequalification process; saving time in procurement stage, so projects are delivered quicker after identifying the need

Time savings reduce expose to inflation risk

Reduced resources and costs in undertaking the Pre-Qualification stage

Suppliers who have tendered may reduce their fees and rates to access the larger market through the framework

the Council will need to appoint a full monitoring & compliance team

new suppliers to the market may not be on the framework

New solutions (e.g. green energy/construction methods/materials) may not be reflected in the framework agreement

Additional costs for using the services provided

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


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

Estimated Timescales Traditional D&B

(1 Stage)

D&B

(2 Stage) DBOM

Appointment of Professional Team (Advisors) to Construction Start on Site (Months)*

13 11 9 18

*average 4.3 weeks per month


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

Traditional

D&B (1 Stage)

D&B (2 Stage) DBOM

Total Fees (2012/13 prices) under OGC Framework £1,573,500 £1,350,000 £1,408,500 £1,573,500

Council – upfront costs before Main Contractor appointed

£1,573,500 £742,500 £845,100 £0

Contractor – included in Capital Cost of Project

£0 £607,500 £563,400 £1,573,500


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


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

All £ Restricted Competitive

Dialogue DBOM

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


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.


Table 8.9 Summary of Key Dates for Construction Contract to be Signed

Traditional and separate

Operator Contract (R)

One Stage D&B and separate


One Stage D&B with separate

Operator Contract (CD)

Two Stage D&B with separate


Two Stage D&B with separate

Operator Contract (CD)

DBOM Contract

Option A – Operator to influence design

13 months 12 months* 15 months* 12 months* 15 months* 18 months

Option B – Operator does not influence design

13 months 11 months 11 months 9 months 9 months N/A

*construction procurement delayed to allow input from Operator.

Review of Key Issues affecting Strategy

8.90 The table below sets out at a high level assessment of the impact of the key issues under each approach. Please note that these are not weighted for relative importance.

Table 8.10 – Evaluation of Key Issues

Traditional and Operating Contract

(R)

Separate D&B and Operator Contract (R)

Separate D&B and Operator (CD) DBOM Contract

Risk Transfer Under the Restricted Process, the Council sets a non-negotiable contract. The Council develops the full design and therefore retains the full risk on planning and the

Under Restricted process, Council set a non-negotiable contract position and this can include full risk transfer, but this needs to be balanced with the market to ensure

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

The scheme presented to the Council will be that of the bidding consortia and will have a whole life cost approach. All risks associated with operation and construction with the bidding consortia. There are



(R)



design. No input is made by an operator and therefore the project is client/advisor led without any test for build-ability or operations.

project is attractive to operators. Planning risk is retained by Council. Construction risk is transferred post planning but possible issues on price variations where Council requirements not sufficiently specific on design.

bid. some standard risks retained by the Council on benchmarking, utilities etc.

Affordability/Impact on Cost

This is a longer construction procurement process leading to the possibility of increased inflationary pressures on the capital costs. The professional fees are highest to the Council. All cost variations are at the Council risk.

Less of inflationary risk as process can be completed earlier. Risk of cost variations by main contractor and professional fees similar to other D&B approaches. Advisor fees the lowest.

Process takes longer than restricted and therefore some additional inflationary risk compared to Restricted process. Construction fees are possibly higher for separate D&B contract. Possible cost variations in design post appointment of main contract and development of production drawings. Advisor fees lower than DBOM

Process can take longer and therefore inflation risk on construction. Whole life costing is applied balancing initial capital costs with on-going revenue costs. Fees are generally lower as consortia seeks to work partially at risk. Advisor fees are marginally more expensive as approach is more complex.

Council Control Over Design

internal issues with decision making (stakeholder

Council has full control over design team they have full approval of the design) but this can lead

Same as Restricted process.

Design controlled through output specification linked to outcomes and details of facility mix based upon



(R)



management, etc) to difficulties in signing off design impacting on timescale, (reword) but Council get a design that they want but without significant influence from main contractor

business case. Bidders present designs reflecting operating needs and input from main contractor.

Timescale This method takes longer to procure than the D&B Contract but is quicker than the DBOM contract which is more sophisticated and combines design, construction and operations. This is due to the procurement of the main contractor when the designs are complete so there is no twin tracking of work load.

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.

As with the Restricted approach but time extended due to a further stage in the process and dialogue meetings to discuss and agree best commercial decisions with operator. (By how much time?)

Standard arrangement with longest timescale which has strong track record of achievability within time period referred to above. Dialogue needs to be carefully managed.

Market Interest A familiar approach to the construction market. Would allow separate choice of operator by Council. There are also many framework agreements covering construction.

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 record using DBOM

Same as Restricted Process.

There is a market for DBOM contracts although the bidders are more limited due to the experience of only some of the operators. It would exclude smaller leisure trusts who may have limited experience in this contract area. Planning costs



(R)



contracts. The issue of planning or landownership does not impact on the delivery of a management contract.

and risk are an issue with the market and these can significantly adversely impact on market interest.

Evaluation of Each of the Options

8.91 The Weighted Evaluation Criteria has been used to score each procurement packages. We have used a scoring system of 1 to 5, of which 1 is worst compared to other options and 5 is best compared to the other options and highlighted the table with the highest (GREEN), second highest (YELLOW), third highest scores (ORANGE) and score that is last (RED) in the ranking. The detailed scoring is shown in Appendix E to this report.

Table 8.11 Evaluation of each Procurement Option

Criteria Council

Weightings %

Traditional Design and

Build + Operator (R)

Design and Build +

Operator (CD) DBOM

Programme certainty at the appointment of the main contractor based upon the level and detail of the tender documents.

10% 50.00 30.00 30.00 30.00

Achieving programme longstop date - deadline set by Council for building to be available for service. (May 2015)

10% - 50.00 - -

Speed of delivery (i.e. how quickly the facility can be ready for use)

5% 10.00 25.00 20.00 15.00


Criteria Council

Weightings %

Traditional Design and


Design and Build +

Operator (CD) DBOM

The ability to achieve quality expectations – exemplar buildings

15% 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00

Influence on design development by the Council 10% 50.00 30.00 40.00 20.00

Cost certainty - likelihood of price being held post contract award

20% 80.00 90.00 90.00 100.00

Optimisation of whole life costs (both capital costs and net operating costs)

10% 30.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Early Main Contractor involvement (linked to buildability and costs)

5% 5.00 20.00 20.00 25.00

Flexibility for changes to be made to the building design during the works

5% 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

Single point delivery ownership (accountability) 5% 5.00 20.00 20.00 25.00

Transfer of design risk to third parties 2% 1.67 6.67 6.67 8.33

Transfer of construction risk to third parties 2% 3.33 6.67 6.67 8.33

Transfer of operational risk to third parties 2% 6.67 6.67 6.67 8.33

Total Weighted Score 331.67 405.00 370.00 380.00

% of Maximum Score 66% 81% 74% 76%

Rank 4 1 3 2


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.


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 Fitness Gym 50 stations (extending to 75) 100 stations plus kids gym

Studio Yes Spinning 2 multi-purpose studios (also meeting rooms)

Main Pool 6 lane x 25m 8 lane x 25m, dismountable floor

Learner Pool Yes Yes

Spectator Seating 150 seats on balcony 100 seats

Squash Courts 4 courts (3 in use) 2 courts

Dry Changing Yes individual male and female Yes individual male and female

Wet Changing Yes individual male and female Yes individual male and female

Catering Service Cafe, bar and vending Cafe, bar and catering 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)


Facilities Current Investment Proposed

3G Facility N/A

6 x 6-a-side pitches and 1 UEFA standard 3G training pitch – floodlit (154m x 80m maximum to accommodate multi-sports)

Boxing Gym Yes No

Meeting Rooms 2 Rooms (1 after gym extension)

No - moved to multi-purpose dance studios

Activity Hall 2 courts/Studio No

All Weather Space

Yes hard surface - size of 2 pitches See 3G football facility

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.


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

Swimming Pool

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 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 members. After analysis of the demographics, the population and the 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.

Dance Studios

Given the increase in memberships and growth in classes FMG recommend a 200m studio with moving wall to allow for 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.

Sports Hall

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 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.

Squash

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 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.

Soft Play

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 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.


Facilities Commentary

3G STP Pitches

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 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.

Climbing

The plans for the proposed new leisure centre include a 2 storey climbing wall. After analysing the demographics and the population and potential return, FMG recommend that a small climbing wall should be included in the proposed facility mix.

Health Suite

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 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.

Catering

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 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.


Table 9.3 - Evaluation Final Scores

Site Option Score




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.


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.


Table 9.4 – Projected Profit and Loss Account

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.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY

INCOME

Dry side 74,944 79,108 83,272 83,272 83,272Squash Courts 8,000 8,400 8,820 8,820 8,820Health Suite 12,500 13,750 15,125 15,125 15,125Health and Fitness 354,708 382,468 401,362 410,227 410,227Swimming 225,029 236,873 248,716 248,716 248,716STP 61,352 61,352 61,352 61,352 61,352Rentals 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Café and Retail 97,839 103,508 108,027 109,182 109,182

TOTAL INCOME 854,373 905,458 946,675 956,694 956,694

EXPENDITURE

Staffing CostsSalaries and Wages 568,108 568,108 568,108 568,108 568,108

PremisesUtilities 158,545 158,545 158,545 158,545 158,545Repairs and Maintenance 40,842 40,842 40,842 68,070 68,070Grounds Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0Cleaning 7,009 7,009 7,009 7,009 7,009National Non-Domestic Rates 0 0 0 0 0Life-Cycle Costs 0 0 0 0 0Total 206,395 206,395 206,395 233,623 233,623

Advertising & Marketing 15,000 0 0 0 0

AdministrationInsurances 0 0 0 0 0Printing, Postage and Stationery 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500IT (telephones / software / licences / website) 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000Admin and Finance 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Other supplies and sundry items 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Total 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500

Cost of SalesCafé and Retail 44,028 46,578 48,612 49,132 49,132

Central Costs, Overheads and ProfitCentral Costs 0 0 0 0 0Irrecoverable VAT 0 0 0 0 0Contingency / Profit 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 0

Total Expenditure 862,031 849,581 851,615 879,363 879,363

excluding life-cycle costs 7,657 (55,877) (95,059) (77,331) (77,331)

YEARS

1 2

(77,331)

5

g

NET OPERATING COST/(SURPLUS) 7,657 (55,877) (95,059)

5

(77,331)

YEARS

3 4

1 2 3 4


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

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:

All £ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5New 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


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

Criteria Traditional Design and


Design and Build +

Operator (CD) DBOM

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).


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].

Appendix 2: Brow Top and Land Adjacent Site Map

lICITlOI.tII

.OOUlll

S ••• TSUll

flTlESS SYM PRO.OSED SWIMMIIS POOl, lEISURE CElm &

flMIlY Em.TlIIMElr CEITRE: SRO.la nool PtII

CRICKET GROUND

" '--:."' •• ,.:.':'-=- ::'. --,. ~ mEIIOI

RIVER DERWE NT

flClllTIES

LEISURE CENTRE

25m x 8 .... I>ClG

FiIness ..... (l00IlUl_)

2 .tuo:Iios ; I\ed)I& lIM

So!! play area

Dry change ( .... ""'ale spoIlS hall and fit"""" suite changing)

ChangOr!g """"" (linklld to ""tOoor sports pitchM)

"".

EXTERNAL

FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE (FEC)

0r8matic atrium space inking 8.Top 10 recrHtiotl ~ below

Restautants & calM

A new public square

Appendix 3: Brow Top Site Map

RIVER DERWE NT

llCITlal.lU

CRICKET GROUND

.oatRlll

S.IITS IIll

, flTlESS GYM .la.DSED SWIMMIIG .aal & tElSUIE CENTIE: GROUND FlOOI .IIN

flClllTIES

LEISURE CENTRE

2!im K 8 "''''' pool

L ........ ' I l6acI>ing pool

Health suite (gUlla' &1 ...... , -, Wet changing .....

• cowl oports Nln

Climbingw.1

FotneM wile (100 IlHon.)

Spinning I tudio

2 squash court.

Soli play .....

Oty change (tepar.", sports kell and rMeSS suite changing)

Changing room. (linked 10 0UId00< sportS pilches)

~ ..

EXTERNAL FIA size 3G IootbIoIf pilch

'OOClllrpa"'~ ----_ .. ____ ...... _._ ...... IMJ

EITEl lOR

Appendix 4: Moorclose

10CATI01 PUI

POOIlAll

SPOllSUll

flTlESS GYM

PAR!(ING

'" ""'"

PIOPDSEO SWIMMIIG POOl & UISUaE CEITIE: GROUIO flOOI PUI

,

fACilITIES

LEISURE CENTRE

...r<~ .. ( 25m K 8 "''''' pool

L ........ ' Il6acI>ing pool

Health suite (gUlla ' &1 ...... , -, Wet changing .....

Spinning studio

2 squash court.

SOfl play .....

Oty change (tepar .... sports kell and rMe" suite changing)

Changing room. (linked 10 0UId00< S9O'IS pilches)

~.

EXTERNAL FIA lin 3G IootbIoIl pilch

100 car pari< sp-.

__ ..... ........ _II'OCO ..... J

EITEl lOR

Appendix 5: BMG Consultation Report

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

1

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


2

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

Introduction

3

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%.


4

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

Introduction

5

Stainburn 3% 56

Wampool *% 1

Warnell *% 1

Waver 0% 0

Wharrels *% 3

Wigton *% 6


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.


6

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.

2 Re

2.1 C

Insucecufo

Figure

Unweig

Tby

Tceco67

Table 2

esults

Current us

n order to uurvey, respentre faciliturrently useourteen (7%

1: Do you

ghted sample

he proportioy gender, b

he proportientre (1,161ompared wi7%).

2: Leisure c

Yes

No

Base

se of loca

understand pondents wies. Approae a leisure

%) did not pr

currently u

base = 1645

on of respout shows so

on of resp1 people) isith those ag

centre use

Under

86%

10%

71

Not An*

al leisure

the use of ere asked aching sevee centre. Orovide an an

use a leisur

*denotes < 0

ndents whoome variatio

ondents whs significantged 50 and

by age

r 16

%

%

1

Yes69%

Pnswered*%

centres

leisure cento indicateen in ten (

One in four nswer.

re centre?

0.5%

o indicate thon by age a

ho indicatetly higher aover (Unde

16‐34

80%

19%

443

refer not to s7%

ntres among whether th69%) respo(25%) sta

(All respon

hat they useas outlined i

d their agemong respo

er 16: 86%,

3

7

2

No25%

say

g those whohey currentondents indte they do

nses)

e a leisure cin the table

e and that ondents age16-34: 80%

35‐49

76%

24%

324

o respondetly use anydicate that not, while

centre is cobelow.

they use aed 49 and

%, 35-49: 76

50+

67%

31%

323

Results

7

ed to the y leisure they do

e one in

onsistent

a leisure younger

6%, 50+:

Yes

No

Prefer no

Not Answ

Sample B

Consult

8

Loamw

ot to say

wered

Bases

TasinthonW

Figure

Unweight

Tev

Swimm

tation on sit

ooking by wmong those

with those fro

Total Har

69% 8

25% 1

7%

*%

1645

hose who isked to ind

ndicated by his, 4% of rene in fifty

Whitehaven

2: If yes, w

ted sample ba

here is littlevident in the

Workingto

Cockermout

Neth

ming pools/bat

te options fo

ward as outle from Harrom Seaton

rington Sta

88%

11%

1%

0%

72

ndicate thadicate which

respondenespondents

indicate tfacilities (al

which one?

ase = 1127

e variation ie data.

on Leisure Cen

th Leisure Cen

Int

herhall, Maryp

ths (un‐specifi

Whiteha

Ot

Not provid

or the new l

lined in the ington (88%(68%), St J

ainburn M

84%

14%

2%

0%

56

at they curreh leisure cents is the Ws indicate ththat they ul 2%).

? (Where re

n the leisur

4%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

5%

0% 10%

ntre

ntre

trim

port

ied)

ven

ther

ded

leisure cent

table below%), Moss BaJohn’s (72%

Moss bay

79%

19%

1%

0%

146

ently use a entre facilitie

Workington Lhat they useuse the In

espondent

re centres u

%

% 20% 30

tre for Work

w, leisure ceay (79%) an

%) and St M

Moorclose

77%

19%

3%

*%

221

leisure cenes they useLeisure Cene the Cockentrim faciliti

currently u

used by dem

% 40% 50

kington.

entre use is nd Stainburichael’s (65

St. John's

72%

27%

1%

0%

222

ntre (1127 re. The facilntre (80%). ermouth Lees, Nether

uses a leisu

mographics,

% 60% 70

significantlrn (84%) co5%).

Seaton

68%

28%

4%

0%

126

respondentity most co Following

eisure Centrrall, Maryp

ure centre)

, including l

80%

0% 80% 90

y higher ompared

St. Michael's

65%

32%

3%

0%

185

s), were ommonly

on from re, while

port and

)

location,

0%

Clifton

62%

35%

4%

0%

26

2.2 P

Tin

Rwmrere

Figure

Unweight

Oprco54in62

Op

Op

Op

Not Ans

Preference

he respondn the area o

Optiowith f

Optioprovid

Optioprovidswimhouse

Respondentswhich are illumajority of respondents espondents

3: Please i

ted sample ba

Option preferoportion oompared to4%). By co

ndicate that 2%, 16-34:

1

0%

ption 1

ption 2

ption 3

swered

e for new

dents were putlined belo

on 1 - to bufacilities sim

on 2 - to bude a centre

on 3 - to bude a familyming pool, e/restauran

s were thenustrated in respondentsis Option 3indicate tha

indicate yo

ase = 1645

erence shoof respondeo those agedontrast, a s

they prefer51%, 35-49

1%

5% 10

w leisure c

presented wow:

ild near to milar to the c

uild in the t with facilitie

uild in the ty entertainmgym, saunat etc.

n asked to the figure bs; however3 (46%), cloat they pref

our preferre

ows significents aged d 49 and besignificantly r Option 3, 9: 50%, 50+

10%

% 15%

centre fac

with the thre

the existingcurrent one

town centrees similar to

town centrement centrea/steam roo

indicate whbelow. Nonr the optionosely followfer Option 2

ed option?

cant variati50 and ovelow (Undey higher pro

compared +: 34%).

20% 25%

cilities

ee options f

g site at Mo;

e on a siteo the curren

e on a sitee which woom/Jacuzzi,

hich option e of the thr

n preferred wed by Opti2.

(All respo

on by agever indicatinr 16: 31%, oportion of with those

% 30% 3

for new leis

oorclose an

known as nt one; and

known as ould include, cinema, bo

they preferee options

by the higon 2 (44%)

nses)

e, with a sng that the16-34: 40%those ageaged 50 an

35% 40%

sure centre

nd provide a

the Cloffo

the Cloffoe facilities owling alley

erred, the reare preferr

ghest propo). One in te

significantlyey prefer O

%, 35-49: 40ed 49 and nd over (Un

44%

46%

45% 50

Results

9

facilities

a centre

cks and

cks and such as y, coffee

esults of red by a ortion of n (10%)

y higher Option 1 0%, 50+: younger nder 16:

0%


10

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)

Total Harrington Moorclose Moss Bay Seaton Stainburn

St. John's

St. 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%).

Results

11

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)

Total User of Moorclose 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;


12

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 1

Uses leisure centres

Uses Moorclose leisure centre

Lives in Moorclose

Lives in St Michaels

Proportion of 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%

2.2.4

Rrestreni

Figure

Unweigh

Easily ac

Wou

P

All facili

Need m

More s

Nea

Concern

Would

Reason fo

Respondentseason was tated was espondents ine (11%) s

4: Reason

hted sample b

ccessible / nea

Placed in a ‘c

Affects on

ld be expandin/site rather

Provides extra/

Not‐duen

Best choice/ p

Nearby/ a

W

Good fo

ities/services ar

more/ would imrunning

space/room av

arest site to the

ns about effects

d Improve the emo

r Option pr

s were askstated by aease of astate that t

state parking

s for your

ase = 1635

rby location (intoo far)

entral’ location

n parking / park

g/developing othan building f

a wider range

Mor

uplicating/ comntertainment/le

preferred optio

accessible publi

Would attract m

or the communi

re placed toget

mprove existing track, tennis co

Less dang

Help reduce th

vailable / easier

e highest concr

s on the ‘Uppie

economics of thore business, et

reference

ed to indicaa majority oaccess (33%the reason fg facilities.

preference

nc other options

n (incl. town cen

king issues/ faci

of an existing farom scratch

of facilities for

re family orient

peting with exiseisure services

n of those avai

c transport serv

more people/vis

ity (incl. area/to

her/at one loca

sport facilities ourts)

ger /risk of floo

e traffic conges

expansion pos

retion of popula

s & Downies’ e

he area (more jc)

Not prov

O

ate the reaf responde%). Followfor their cho

e? (All resp

3

3

3

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

0% 5

s are

ntre)

lities

cility

area

tated

sting

lable

vices

sitors

own)

ation

(e.g.

oding

stion

ssible

ation

event

jobs,

vided

Other

ason for thents, howeveing on fromoice was the

ponses)

1

10%

10%

7%

5%

5%

3%

3%

3%

%

%

%

%

%

6%

5% 10%

eir Option per the reasom this, onee central loc

14%

1%

%

%

16%

15% 20%

preference. on most coe in sevencation, whil

% 25% 3

Results

13

No one ommonly n (14%) e one in

33%

0% 35%

3


14

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

1 Option

2 Option

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%

Sample profile

15

Sample profile

A summary of the profile of the respondents to this research is summarised in the table below.


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



16


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


Sample profile

17


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

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

� � �

�

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

Manager

Andy Mcleod Managing

Director

25/10/13

� � �

�

��

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;

� Robertson North of England

� Allerdale Borough Council (Planning Department, Environmental Health and Engineering

Department)

� Environment Agency (EA)

� United Utilities

� 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.

� Site Option 1 – Brow Top

� Site Option 2 – Brow Top Car Park

� 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.


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.


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.


(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.


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.


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.


(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;

� Is the development to be constructed to Sport England Standard’s

� Is the development to be constructed to PWTAG (Pool Water Treatment Advisory Group)

Standard’s

� Operational requirements for chemical treatment, washout, pumping and tank locations

and maintenance / shutdown requirements

� 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;

� Geotechnical desk top surveys

� Intrusive site investigation (Moor close only)

� Review of historic SI data from Allerdale Borough Council in relation to Brow Top

� Flood Risk Assessment

� Topographic surveys

� Utility surveys

� 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;

� 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.

� Traffic Impact Assessment (The scope of the TIA is to be agreed with Cumbria County

Council)

� A number of specialist ecological surveys are required, these include Breeding Birds, Bats,

Otters, Reptiles and Biodiversity 2020 species.

� Habitat Regulation Assessment to be undertaken by Allerdale Borough Council

� Heritage Impact Assessment

� Environmental Impact Assessment

� Noise Impact Assessment

� Light Pollution Survey (Moor Close only)

� Coal Mining Risk Assessment (Moor Close only due to mine entries / mine workings)

� 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;

� Natural England

� Workington Civic Trust

� Cumbria Wildlife

� Highways & Engineering (Allerdale Borough Council)

� Cumbria County Council Highways

� Environmental Health (Allerdale Borough Council)

� Cumbria Fire & Rescue

� Cumbria Police

� Environmental Agency

� Sport England

� 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;

� Issue Gateway 2 Report 28/10/13

� Commence Gateway 3 11/11/13

� Submit Planning Application 17/02/14

� Planning Permission Obtained 20/05/14

� Commence Gateway 4 17/02/14

� Sign Project Delivery Agreement 23/06/14

� Submit Gateway 4 Report 23/06/14

� 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;

� Removal of invasive species (Himalayan Balsam)

� Provision of otter proof fencing

� Provision of SUDS / Attenuation systems

� Diversion of HV / Street lighting cables

� Diversion of Soapery Beck / Bridging Structure to Soapery Beck

� Gas Protection

� Mineral deposits to be ascertained

� Potential of temporary de watering

� Diversion of existing United Utilities combined sewer

� Provision of new incoming BT, Water, Gas & Electric to site (subject to network

availability)

� Upgrading of existing access road (Subject to TIA)

Site Option 2 – Brow Top Car Park


� Removal of invasive species (Himalayan Balsam)

� Provision of otter proof fencing


� Diversion of HV / Street lighting cables

� Diversion of Soapery Beck / Bridging Structure to Soapery Beck

� Gas Protection

� Mineral deposits to be ascertained

� Potential of temporary de watering

� Diversion of existing United Utilities combined sewer

� Provision of new incoming BT, Water, Gas & Electric to site (subject to network

availability)

� Upgrading of existing access road (subject to TIA)

� � �

�

Site Option 3 – Moor Close


� Capping of existing mine shafts and mine workings (Quantity and locations currently

unknown)

� Investigation of Geological fault

� Contamination testing

� Installation of ground anchors to prevent pool floatation

� Potential pumping station for drainage and pool emptying

� Removal / diversion of unknown services

� Increased drainage due to location of existing infrastructure


� Potential noise suppression / Alternative lighting solutions due to proximity of existing

dwellings

� Extending existing BT, Water, Gas & Electric to site (Subject to network availability)

� 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

Ground Water Flood Risk Water Courses Intrusive Site Investigation Mining, Coal Seams &

Minerals

Ground Gas Weak or Made Ground Noise Site Topography Archaeology Contamination

Proposed Site

Brow Top Site is adjacent to River

Derwent. 2005 Borehole logs

indicate groundwater level of

aprox 2.60m

Site is located within a level

3 flood zone, full FRA

required. Site is

designated High Risk to

groundwater flooding. EA

require SUDS &

Attenuation to be utilised

Soapery Beck is located

within site boundary and

will require diversion.

Input from EA required, no

culverts will be permitted

SI Report dated 2005 by AEG

is inconclusive and a number

of sections are missing, no

warranty provided, a full

intrusive SI is required. 2005

Borehole logs indicate dense

sandy, clayey gravel

Site is within a zone of

influence from existing

mine workings, however

these were last worked in

1900. No shafts or

entrances recorded on site.

Report by Wardell

Armstrong (2010) identifies

mineral deposits within the

site boundary

No ground gas highlighted

within desktop study,

awaiting full intrusive SI

report to confirm if

contamination is present

No made ground

identified, however records

indicate landslips have

occurred and geological

faults have occurred within

500m of the site boundary

Noise assessment required

to comply with BREEAM

and Planning

Site is predomitaley flat

and has a cross fall of

aprox 0.5m

Site is within Workington

Conservation area,

Heritage Impact Statement

required

No contamination

highlighted within desktop

study, full intrusive

required to confirm if

contamination is present

Brow Top Car Park Included within above

commentary

Included within above

commentary


commentary


commentary


commentary


commentary


commentary



and Planning



aprox 0.5m

Site is within Workington

Conservation area,

Heritage Impact Statement

required


commentary

Moor close Await intrusive SI Report Site is located within a level

1 flood zone, full FRA

required. Site is

designated low Risk to

groundwater flooding. EA

require SUDS &

Attenuation to be utilised

Eller Beck is located within

250m of the development

but is outwith the

proposed development

zone

Await intrusive SI Report Site is within a zone of

influence from existing

mine workings, however

these were last worked in

1900. A of number mine

entries / workings are

located within the site

boundary, a mine entry

interpretative report is

No ground gas highlighted

within desktop study, full

intrusive required to

confirm if contamination is

present

No made ground

identified, however records

indicate geological faults

have occurred within 500m

of the site boundary



and Planning



aprox 0.5m

No Archaeological issues

identified

Contamination highlighted

within desktop study,

awaiting full intrusive SI

results to confirm levels of

contamination present

onsite

Geotechnical Desk Study

interpretative report is

required from the Coal

Authority

Invasive Species Trees, Flora & Fauna SSSI Breeding Birds Bats Badgers Otters EIA Other Species Other Considerations

Proposed Site

Brow Top Himalaya Balsam is present

onsite, eradication

programme to be undertaken

No protected flora or

species of conservation

concern recorded onsite.

No additional surveys

required.

No SSSI's within

development area and no

protected landscape

identified

The development will impact

upon breeding birds, nesting

survey required to be

undertaken

Potential for Bats onsite,

Bat survey to be

undertaken

Presence of Badgers

consider low, no further

surveys required

The development will

impact upon otters within

the locality, a further otter

survey is required and

precautions, such as otter

proof fencing is to be

implemented during

construction works

Environmental Impact

Assessment required prior

to submitting planning

application

Development will not

impact on Red Squirrels,

Water Voles, Reptiles,

Amphibians, White Clawed

Crayfish and invertebrates,

no further surveys required

Habitats Regulation

Assessment to be

undertaken by Allerdale

Borough Council.

Protection measures to be

put in place during

construction works to

prevent pollution to River

Derwent and Soapery Beck

Brow Top Car Park Himalaya Balsam is present

onsite, eradication

programme to be undertaken





required.

No SSSI's within


protected landscape

identified




undertaken


Bat survey to be

undertaken

Not identified within

Scoping Survey

The development will

impact upon otters within

the locality, a further otter

survey is required and

precautions, such as otter

proof fencing is to be

implemented during

construction works




application


impact on Red Squirrels,

Water Voles, Reptiles,

Amphibians, White Clawed

Crayfish and invertebrates,

no further surveys required

Habitats Regulation

Assessment to be

undertaken by Allerdale

Borough Council.

Protection measures to be

put in place during

construction works to

prevent pollution to River

Derwent and Soapery Beck

Moor close A record of Japanese

Knotweed has been noted

adjacent to the Southern

Boundary, no invasive species

recorded onsite





required.

No SSSI's within


protected landscape

identified




undertaken


Bat survey to be

undertaken

Presence of Badgers

consider low, no further

surveys required

Not identified within

Scoping Survey




application

Site has potential for

Reptiles and therefore a

Reptile survey is required.


impact upon Red Squirrels,

Amphibians and

Invertebrates, no further

Site may also support other

Biodiversity 2020 species

such as hedgehogs,

clearance works to be

undertaken in an approved

manner

Ecological Scoping Survey

Invertebrates, no further

surveys required

Site Access & Transportation Site Utilities Highways Drainage Overhead Services Existing Structures &

Features

Proposed Site

Brow Top Site is accessed via Derwent

Street and Murray Road,

access road is of tarmac

construction and leads to an

existing tarmac car park

HV cable crosses the site

(East to West) and will

require diversion /

protection. Street lighting

cable located on West,

South and East boundaries

will require diversion /

protection. No Gas, BT or

Water identified via survey

Detailed TIA required to

ascertain impact on

existing road network.

Potential contribution

required for upgrade

works, detailed discussions

are required with Cumbria

County Council

Existing combined sewer

system within Griffins Street

& car park is subject to 8m

easement. United Utilities

confirm that no building over

agreements will be issued.

Draiange may require

protection prio to works

commencing

None identified, however a

number of street lights are

within the development

area

No existing structures

onsite, existing bowling

green and pavilion located

to Northern boundary of

site

Brow Top Car Park Site is accessed via Derwent

Street and Murray Road,

access road is of tarmac

construction and leads to an

existing tarmac car park

HV cable crosses the site

(East to West) and will

require diversion /

protection. No Gas, BT or

Water identified via survey

Detailed TIA required to

ascertain impact on

existing road network.

Potential contribution

required for upgrade

works, detailed discussions

are required with Cumbria

County Council

No S/W drainage onsite. F/W

drainage located within

Derwent Street and Brow Top




area


onsite

Moor close Site is accessed via Ashfield

Road South, access road is of

tarmac construction

Unknown services crosses

the site (South East -

North), this may require

diversion / protection. BT,

HV and Water main are

located within existing car

park, no gas identified via

survey

Site is adjacent to Southern

Relief Road Line (Safe

Guarding Corridor), no

devlopment to take place

adjacent to this area

No F/W drainage onsite,

drainage connection is within

existing car park. S/W

drainage located with South

West & South East

boundaries




area


onsite, site is located

adjacent to existing leisure

centre car park

Utilities & Infrastructure

survey

Land Ownership & RLB Rights of Way Covenants Party Wall Over sailing Wayleaves

Proposed Site

Brow Top Land is owned by Allerdale

Borough Council, further

information required in

relation to Red Line Boundary

Rights of way consultation

required, Title disclosure

report required

Mineral rights to be

confirmed, no restrictive

covenants identified

N/A N/A T.B.A but probably in place

for HV Cable

Brow Top Car Park Land is owned by Allerdale

Borough Council, further


relation to Red Line Boundary

Non identified, Title

disclosure report required




N/A N/A T.B.A but probably in place

for HV Cable

Moor close Site is part owned by Allerdale

Borough Council and Cumbria

County Council, further


relation to RLB. Cumbria

County Council to confirm

location of Southern Relief

Road line

Non identified, Title

disclosure report required




N/A N/A N/A

Legal

� � �

�

Appendix B

Consultation Drawings

gowdridge thomason architects

llllTllN PliN

PIll Hill

SPIRTS Hill

FITNESSIY.

) /

PRIPISED lEISURE IEITRE : IRIUID FlOIR Plil o 00

We '

Cricket Ground

N

~ I~ I

ora no A. 100 I

\ 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

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)

Cafe

Kitchen

Administration office

EXTERNAL

Full size 3G football pitch

100 car park spaces

Sk.etch perspective of public route to fown cenlte (Please note - ALL IMAGES ARE INDICA TIVE)

EITERIIR


lOCITION Plil

POOl Hill

SPORTS Hill

FITNESS IYM PROPOSEllEISIRE CENTRE: IROINI FlOOR Pili o "0 ... .... 100 I

Cricket Ground

EITERIOR

\ FIClliTIES LEISURE CENTRE

25m x 8 lane pool




. '-~,,:==.L.~ Wet changing area

River Derwent

4 court sports hall

Climbing wall



Spinning studio

2 squash courts

Soft play area



Cafe

Kitchen


EXTERNAL


100 car park spaces

FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT 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

, (Please nole • ALL IMAGES ARE INDICATIVE)

op-nO"/ ~~

Site Location Ariel Photo - Brow Top


LOCITIOI Plil

POOL HILL

SPORTS HILL

FITNESS IYI

PROPOSED LEISURE CENTRE

PROPOSED LEISURE CEITRE : IROUID FLIIR Plil & ~o

hw .... ' 00

I

FICILITIES

LEISURE CENTRE

25m x 8 lane pool




Wet changing area

4 court sports hall

Climbing wall



Spinning studio

2 squash courts

Soft play area



Cafe

Kitchen


EXTERNAL


100 car park spaces

(Please note - ALL IMAGES ARE INDICATIVE)

EITERIIR

t ' Ar'lel Photo - Moorclose Workington Site I_ocalon

\

� � �

�

Appendix C

Pre Construction

& Construction Programmes

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"� ��

#�� $� �"�� %�� &��

��

�! �� " �� # � �� # �$ � �! �� ! �� " � �� " �� " �� " �� # $ �� ! � �! �� " �� # � �� # �$ � # �$ ��%� %� %� � � � � $ ! " # �� $ �! �" �# � �� $ �! �" �# � �� $ �! �" �# � �� $ �! �" �# � $� $� $�

�

�

�

�

'

(

)

*

+

��

��

��

��

��

�'

�(

�)

�*

�+

��

��

��

��

��

�'

�

�)

�*

�+

��

��

��

��

��

�'

�(

�)

�*

�+

��

��

��

��

��

�'

�(

�)

�*

�+

'�

'�

'�

'�

'�

''

'(

')

'*

'+

(�

(�

(�

(�

(�

('

((

!

(*

(+

)�

)�

)�

)�

)�

)'

)(

))

)*

)+

*�

*�

*�

*�

*�

*'

*(

*)

**

*+

+�

+�

+�

+�

+�

+'

+(

+)

+*

++

��

��

��

��

��

�"#

��(

��)

��*

��+

��

��$�

��$$��$��,��-��.�

/�� 0�$

��1��".��

2..��3%�4��

��&��.�� 5��0�$

2..��0�$�6!��%��.��5�%��4��7

8�9��-��$$��$��%"��6%!:�8�� :�0�.��4�&�27

�� .�%��2��$ ��;

!9��5��2��$ ��

!9��5��299�� %"��

8�9��-��<��%�-�� 9��

��.��0�� 2..�� .��

��.��=��#�� 6��$�7

!9��5��"��

!�� -��9"��,��-��.

�� .��9��-��

�� .��"��$$�

�� .�=��#�� "��$$�

%"�$��0�� 2..�� .��2 ��9 ��>��"��"��

>"��.��4�%"�$��

/;��"��"��

!�� "�� .��9

��5��$��!��"�9�

��%��$�

�� .�� >��5�5��%��62��-7

2��$��5��,021:�?�� :��.�� !��"��9�%.��/�� 9%��

� ��,��-��.�

&�� >��5

��"��299�� %"��

!9��5��5�/�� ,��-��-��

2��"� ��.��@��!>2�%��

�� 4�%��"��"� ��.��

4/��.��

��0�$��

�� .$��

��4�&��9��-

2..��%.�� " ��

2��"� �� .$��@��!>2�%��

�� 4�%��"��"� �� .$��

4/�� .$��

�� 4�8.9��

��4�&��9��-

&�� "� ��2��"� ��

&�� "� �� 4�%��"��"� ��

&�� "� ��4/��

��&��A�

&�� 1��

��.��1��.��

%"�$��1��.��

��-��9"��,��-��.�

8.9��-��

2..��>�//2�2��

8�9��-��>�//2��2��$��

>�//2�,��-��.

8�9��-��8�� 2..��

��$$"��/��$��4�%�-�� 9��" ��

��.�� 2.. ��4�%"..��"$��

%"�$��&" �� 2.. ��

��$��9

� ��$$��

&" �� 2..�� 9

%"�$��>"� 9��" ��2..�� -

>"� 9��" ��$��9

>"� 9��" ��2..��

��&��$�

� ��,��-��.�

�� .�� 9�2��"� ��#��"��@��!>2�%��

�� .��%:�&&4/�%��9" ��9��%��9" ��

/�9�8��" ��

/�9�8��%��55

��.�� 9�%.��5��

�� .�� 9�� 4�%��"��"� ��#��"��

�� .�� 9�4/��#��"��

�� .�%.�� 6!��8�� 7

��0�$��

��.��>��5�3B��4�0��9��-��

�-��0��0��9��-��

!��

&�� :�� $��4�0��

!��

��>��9��

%"�$��0��

�� .��.��

��.��1��.��

��-��9"��,��-��.�

&�� -��

%"�$��1��.��

�� .��"$��

2��4�� 2��$��

2��$��5�/�� ,��-��-��

!��"��9�@�/�� ,��-�

%�� 2��$��

8�� 2.. ��

&�� "��$$�

%"�$��&��

��.��%��#��9��

��.��"��=4%��

!��"��"��=4%��

��2..�� 9

��"��=4%�� 2..��9

�� 9

��$$��

'��(�� $�

��,��-��%�.��>��-

��5�/;��=?�� 8��

��,��-��/;��8��9�8�� %��0�-

�� 1��55��%��&��$�%��/��

&��

��

�9

��9

��9

��9

��9

��

��

�9

�9

�9

��

��

��

�9

��9

�9

�9

��9

��9

�#�

��

��

�9

��

��9

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

(�

)�

��

��

�9

��

��9

(�

��9

*�

�)��

��

+�

��

)�

��

�'�

�'�

��

��

��

��9

�9

�9

��9

*�

�9

+��9

��9

��

��

��9

��9

��

��

��

�!��

*�

*�

(�

��

")*")*�"�%

")*")*�"�%

��+��

��

��

��

��+��

��

�+��+��

��

��

�)��

��

�)��

��

�)��

��

��

�)��

��

�*��

�*��

��

��

�'��

��*��*�"�%

��

�*��

�*��

�'��

��

�'��

��

�+��

�+��

�'��

�+��

�(��

�'��

�(��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�(��

�)��

��

��

�'��

�(��

��

�(��

�+��

�(��

�)��

�)��

��'��

��'��

��

��

��'��

")*��*�"�%

��

�)��

��

�(��

�(��(��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�)��

�(��'��

�+��'��

�(��(��

�+��(��

��(��

��

��

�+��

��

��(��

�)��

��(��

�+��

�)��

��(��

��(��

��'��

�(��(��

��'��

�(��(��

��(��

��(��

�)��)��

��(��

��)��

�!*"%*�"�&

�)��

��

�+��'��

��(��

��*"!*�"�&

�#*��*�"�%

��+��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�+��

��

�*��

�*��

�'��

�*��

��

��

��

�+��

�'��

�*��

��

��

��

�'��

��*"#*�"�&

��

��

�)��

�+��

�+��

�(��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�)��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�)��

��

��

�(��

��

��

�)��

��

��

�)��

�+��'��

��'��

��'��

��

��'��

��'��

��*"!*�"�&

�)��'��

�+��'��

�'��(��

�'��(��

�(��(��

�'��(��

�+��'��

�+��(��

�+��(��

�(��(��

��

�)��'��

�+��'��

��(��

�*��(��

��(��

��(��

��(��

��(��

�*��(��

��(��

��(��

��'��

��(��

��

�)��

��(��

�*��)��

��(��

�(��(��

��(��

�)��(��

��(��

��)��

�)��)��

�*��)��

��)��

�+*"!*�"�&

��'��

��(��

��(��

�*��)��

� &��'(��'&��

� )��*��'�'+�,�

� &��'(��'+�,��'

� -��'&�.��'(��'/��

$ (��')��'��

! ��'&0�'1'&�.��'��

" ��'��'&��'2�'��'/��

# ��'��'/��'34��'��'2'��'1'�5�6

7�8��,�'&��'(��'��'3�49'7��9'/�'1'�5�6

�� '��'��'��:

�� 48��2�'��'(��

�� 48��2�'�88��'��

�� 7�8��,�';��'��,��8��'��

�� &��'/��'��'5��

�$ &��'<��'=��'(��'&��'35��'>��6

�! 48��2�'&��'(��'(��

�" 4��'5��,'5�8��'+�,��

�# ��'(��8'5��,'5��

� ��'&��'(��'&��

�� '<��'=��'(��'&��

�� '/��'��'5��'�'��8��'?��'(��

�� ?��'(��'&��'1'��

�� -:��'(��'��

�� 4��'(��'5��'&��8

�$ &�.��'(�2��'4��8'

�! )��*��'�'+�,�

�" ��'(��'?��2'2�'(��'��'3��'5��,6

�# ��'2'&+/�)9'@��9'��'4��'��8'��'-��8'��

� (��'+�,��

�� '(��'?��2

�� &��'�88��'��

�� 48��2��'2'-��'+�,�'&��,��

�� '(��'��'%'54?�'��'�

�� (��'1'��'(��'��

�$ �1-'(��'��

�! ��'/��'��

�" (��'&��'��

�# ��'5��*'1'��8��,

� ��'��'��'(��

�� '��'��'%'54?�'��'�

�� (��'1'��'��'��

�� 1-'��'��

�� (��'&��'5��*'1'7�8��

�� 5��*'1'��8��,

�$ ��'��'��'��

�! ��'��'(��'1'��'��

�" ��'��'�1-'��

�# ��'��A�

� ��')��*��'�'(��'&��

$� &��')��*��'�'5��

$� ��')��*��'�'5��

$� 5��,'5�8��'+�,��

$� 7�8��'5��,'5��

$� ��'?5--��'��

$$ 7�8��,�'?5--��'&��'��

$! ?5--��'+�,��

$" 7�8��,�'7��'��

$# (��'-��'1'��,��8��'(��

$ &��'&��'��'1'��'��

!� ��'��'&��'��

!� ��'&��8

!� &��'(��'��

!� ��'&��'��'��8

!� ��'?��8��'5��'��'&��,

!$ ?��8��'5��'��'&��8

!! ?��8��'5��'��

!" )��*��'�'+�,�

!# (��'+�,��

! ��'��8'��'��'=��'%'54?�'��'�

"� ��'5��9'��1-'��8��'��8'5��'��8��

"� -�8'7��'(��

"� -�8'7��'��'�22

"� &��'��8'��2��

"� ��'��8'(��'1'��'��'=��

"$ ��'��8'�1-'��'=��

"! ��'��'��'34��'7��6

"" ��'/��'��

"# &��'?'2'0B�'1'/��8��'&��,��

" ��,��'/��'/��8��'&��,��

#� 4��'(��'5��*

#� ��'(��'&��9'&��'1'/��'(��

#� 4��'(��'5��*

#� ��'?��8'(��'5��*

#� ��'/��'(��

#$ ��'(��'&��

#! &��')��*��'�'5��

#" 5��,'5�8��'+�,��

## ��'5��,'5��'

# ��')��*��'�'5��

� ��'(��'��

� ��'(��'1'��'��

� ��'2'-��'+�,�'&��,��

� 4��'�'&��8'%'-��'+�,�

� ��'��'��

$ 7��'��

! ��'(��'&��

" ��'��

# &��'��'=��'��8'&��'&��

&��'(��'&��'<1�'&��

�� 4��'(��'&��'<1�'&��'�'(��(

�� (��('��'&��8

�� (��'&��'<1�'&��'��8

�� '&��8

�� (��'��

��$ -��'+�,�

��! ��'+�,�'�'��'?��,

��" ��'2'-:��'<@'(��'>'7��

��# &��'+�,�'�'-:��'7��8'7��'��*��'>'��'/��,

�� 5��'(��*��'�')��22��'��>'��'��'-��

� &��'(��'&��

� )��*��'�'+�,�

� &��'(��'+�,��'

� -��'&�.��'(��'/��

$ (��')��'��

! ��'&0�'1'&�.��'��

" ��'��'&��'2�'��'/��

# ��'��'/��'34��'��'2'��'1'�5�6

7�8��,�'&��'(��'��'3�49'7��9'/�'1'�5�6

�� '��'��'��:

�� 48��2�'��'(��

�� 48��2�'�88��'��

�� 7�8��,�';��'��,��8��'��

�� &��'/��'��'5��

�$ &��'<��'=��'(��'&��'35��'>��6

�! 48��2�'&��'(��'(��

�" 4��'5��,'5�8��'+�,��

�# ��'(��8'5��,'5��

� ��'&��'(��'&��

�� '<��'=��'(��'&��

�� '/��'��'5��'�'��8��'?��'(��

�� ?��'(��'&��'1'��

�� -:��'(��'��

�� 4��'(��'5��'&��8

�$ &�.��'(�2��'4��8'

�! )��*��'�'+�,�

�" ��'(��'?��2'2�'(��'��'3��'5��,6

�# ��'2'&+/�)9'@��9'��'4��'��8'��'-��8'��

� (��'+�,��

�� '(��'?��2

�� &��'�88��'��

�� 48��2��'2'-��'+�,�'&��,��

�� '(��'��'%'54?�'��'�

�� (��'1'��'(��'��

�$ �1-'(��'��

�! ��'/��'��

�" (��'&��'��

�# ��'5��*'1'��8��,

� ��'��'��'(��

�� '��'��'%'54?�'��'�

�� (��'1'��'��'��

�� 1-'��'��

�� (��'&��'5��*'1'7�8��

�� 5��*'1'��8��,

�$ ��'��'��'��

�! ��'��'(��'1'��'��

�" ��'��'�1-'��

�# ��'��A�

� ��')��*��'�'(��'&��

$� &��')��*��'�'5��

$� ��')��*��'�'5��

$� 5��,'5�8��'+�,��

$� 7�8��'5��,'5��

$� ��'?5--��'��

$$ 7�8��,�'?5--��'&��'��

$! ?5--��'+�,��

$" 7�8��,�'7��'��

$# (��'-��'1'��,��8��'(��

$ &��'&��'��'1'��'��

!� ��'��'&��'��

!� ��'&��8

!� &��'(��'��

!� ��'&��'��'��8

!� ��'?��8��'5��'��'&��,

!$ ?��8��'5��'��'&��8

!! ?��8��'5��'��

!" )��*��'�'+�,�

!# (��'+�,��

! ��'��8'��'��'=��'%'54?�'��'�

"� ��'5��9'��1-'��8��'��8'5��'��8��

"� -�8'7��'(��

"� -�8'7��'��'�22

"� &��'��8'��2��

"� ��'��8'(��'1'��'��'=��

"$ ��'��8'�1-'��'=��

"! ��'��'��'34��'7��6

"" ��'/��'��

"# &��'?'2'0B�'1'/��8��'&��,��

" ��,��'/��'/��8��'&��,��

#� 4��'(��'5��*

#� ��'(��'&��9'&��'1'/��'(��

#� 4��'(��'5��*

#� ��'?��8'(��'5��*

#� ��'/��'(��

#$ ��'(��'&��

#! &��')��*��'�'5��

#" 5��,'5�8��'+�,��

## ��'5��,'5��'

# ��')��*��'�'5��

� ��'(��'��

� ��'(��'1'��'��

� ��'2'-��'+�,�'&��,��

� 4��'�'&��8'%'-��'+�,�

� ��'��'��

$ 7��'��

! ��'(��'&��

" ��'��

# &��'��'=��'��8'&��'&��

&��'(��'&��'<1�'&��

�� 4��'(��'&��'<1�'&��'�'(��(

�� (��('��'&��8

�� (��'&��'<1�'&��'��8

�� '&��8

�� (��'��

��$ -��'+�,�

��! ��'+�,�'�'��'?��,

��" ��'2'-:��'<@'(��'>'7��

��# &��'+�,�'�'-:��'7��8'7��'��*��'>'��'/��,

�� 5��'(��*��'�')��22��'��>'��'��'-��

��8��8

��8 ��8

��8 8��8��8

��8��8

��8 ��8

� 8��8 ��8

�$8 ��8 8�"8

8 ��8 8 8 8��8 �$8

�#8��8�"8

#�� $� �"�� %�� &��

%� %� %� � � � � $ ! " # �� $ �! �" �# � �� $ �! �" �# � �� $ �! �" �# � �� $ �! �" �# � $� $� $� �! �� " �� # � �� # �$ � �! �� ! �� " � �� " �� " �� " �� # $ �� ! � �! �� " �� # � �� # �$ � # �$ ��

��

�� <��

%�.� 2 ��9 ��"�� 0�$

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !

"��#��$� ��

%�� &� �$�� '��

��

�� ! !� " �� # � �� # �� # �� $ � �! �� " ! �� " �� # �� $ � �� $ �� $ �� ! � $ �� ! !� � �! �� " � �� # �� # �� $ � �! �� " ! �� " �� !� " �� # � �� $ �� $ �� ! !� " �� # �%� %! %� %� � � ! � � � " # $ �� ! �� " �# �$ �� ! �� " �# �$ !� !� !� !! !� !� !� !" !# !$ �� ! �� " �# �$ �� ! �� " �# �$ �� ! �� " �# �$ "� "� "� "! "� "� "�

�

�

�

!

"

(

)

#

��

��

��

��

��

�*

�+

�(

�)

#

��

��

��

��

��

�*

�+

�(

�)

�,

��

��

��

��

��

�*

�+

�(

$%

�,

��

��

��

��

��

�*

�+

�(

�)

�,

*�

*�

*�

*�

*�

**

*+

*(

*)

*,

+�

+�

+�

+�

+�

+*

""

+(

+)

+,

(�

(�

(�

(�

&'

(*

(+

((

()

(,

)�

)�

)�

)�

)�

)*

(�)��

'��#��-��&��

��#��

��&&��"��

��!*�� +

,��,�-��+

.��&��/��

��0��'��&0�$� �1��##�'��-��&&� ��

,�) ��

�� $�� %��#�.2��

.2��!��&��1��#�

3� ��'#��!��&��1��#�

4��&��1�5�6��!��&��1��#�

��!��1�7##��!��&�� #�

/�##��#

7��5��#

!�68�##��!��&��1��#

.2��1��$�� /�$� ��

,��

.��'��$��$�#�'��#��6�

��##��#��6��6�

��##��'��

/��'��#��6

'8��1�. ��8

��##��8��

'8��1�. ��/��/#��

��#��6��/��/#��

'�$ ��# ��9��8��&��1��/��/#��

3� ��#��1�'��.��

��##�4��&��

��$��4��$� �/#��'#�

��$��.2��#��7##�

�# ��1��$��7##��

.2��#��1�'��$��

��#�!#��6��6�7##�

1.��&��

7��-��

��.��

/��/�2�1.

��##�'0��#��:��#��$��#�;##

/��/�2�<��

'�� '0��;##�1�4��$� �/#��

��$��

'�� /�2�1.

'0��#��1.�.=$�0&��>��#�/�#��9�'��&��&�1�<�$??�@

'�� /�2�<��1��'

��##��#�&��7##

��#�7��6�1�'0��'��

1/��#��

��"$�� #

��#�%��'�A-�� /#��/��

��8�##��#

��#

'0�$��/#��'0��;##

��

'$�0�� #��

5�� /�2�1.

/#��

��$��6��'0��;##

!$�# ��#��

�#��/��"$�

'0�6#��#��1��&��

��&&��1�5��

.� �3��5��1�� $��

;� ��

/0��+

��##��3��#��

��##��6

��##�A��1��

5�&��6��

7��%��1�'��

'�8��%� ��0��

��&��'��-��&&� ��1�6��4��

$��+

�� $�� %��#�.2��

3� ��1�'��$��

��$��'$��!��

'�� 4��

4�� 4��

�� 4��

.��/#�� #��1�/��

5��1��&&��

�� 0B�� 8��

.� �3��5��1�� $��

��&0#��

'�

��

""�'�

�$�

��

��

� � �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�!�$�

)�

��

��

��

�

)�

�

��

��

��

��

��

*�

)�

��

(�

+�

�'�$�

+�

)�

*�

��

(�

)�

��

)�

��

��

(�

)�

)�

��

��

+�

(��

,��

,�

(�

��

��

*�

��

*�

��

�'�

��

*�

+�

��

��

+�

��

�%� �

��

��

+�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�$12"1�2 '

��+��

��+��

��(��

� 12&1�2 '

� 12&1�2 '

��(��

��(��

$ 12&1�2 '

��(��

��)��

�*��)��

��)��

��)��

��

��

�)��

�*��

2!12 1�2 !

�*��*

�,��*

�+��*

��*

��*

�*��*

�*��*

��*

�+��*

�(��*

�)��*

�*��*

�,��*

�,��*

�*��+��*

�(��*��*

�(��*��*

�+��+��*

2�12"1�2 !

��+��*

�+��(��*

��+��*

��+��*

�+��(��*

��(��*

�+��+��*

�(��(��*

��*

�)��,��*

��(��*

�+��+��*

��)��*

�,��*

�+��*

�)��,��*

�*��,��*

�(��(��*

��)��*

��,��*

��*

�+��*

�+��*

�,��*

��*

�+��*

��*

'12!1�2 !

��*��*

��+��*

��(��*

�(��)��*

�*��,��*

�*��,��*

�,��*

#12$1�2 !

�,��*

��*

�*��*

��*��*

��+��*

��,��*

��)��*

�)��,��*

�*��,��*

��*

��*

� �� &

� � ��&�� &��

! �� &'�� (

� )��&��

� *��+�&�&%&)�� &,��-

� � ��&��&.�&,��-

" /��&'�� &��

# '��&� ��&)��(&0&1� ��&� ��&��(��

$ ��

�� 2�(��(&3��&/4��

�� /4��&5� ��&0&'��&

�� .�(��&��&�� &��&5� ��&0&'��&

�! *� &��&0&6��- ��&��&5� ��&0&'��&

�� 2)&5� �&0&,� &��&5� ��&��(&'��&

�� &'��

�� ,��&6� �&'��

�" 5��-7 &��&5� ��&0&'��

�# /4��&0&)�� &'�(&��(��

�$ ��

�� /��&��&��+��-&

�� 1� ��&��&��-&'��-

�� 1� ��&'�� &��

�! � ��&'�� &��&��+��-

�� 7��&�� &0&/(��&'�� &��&2��7

�� 1� ��&2��7&)��

�� 7��&�� &0&/(��&'�� &��&� � �&��

�" ��&��- ��&��&� � �&��

�# ��(&+�( ��8&2� �7��&0&)��&��&� � �&��

�$ .�(�� &�� &0&�� &/��&'� ��

!� 1� ��&*� &��

!� )�� &*��(&��&��

!� )�� &/4��&)�� &,�

!! )�(( ��&0&)�� &,� ��

!� /4��&�� &0&�� &��

!� 1��&5��-+��-&,�

!� �0/&)�� &

!" ,�� &�� (

!# � �&��

!$ � � �&� 4&�0/

�� 1� ��&�� &9�� &�� &��&'��&:�

�� &� 4&��

�� (&��&�� &:�&0&*��(&��&

�! )�� &'��

�� (&� 4&�0/

�� &�0/&/;� ��&<'��&� �� 8&��&2��&0&��== >

�� (&� 4&�� &0&1'�

�" 1� ��&) �� &,�

�# ��&,��-&0&��&��

�$ �0�&)� ��

�� &��&'�� (&��&'��

�� '��&3 � �� &?&�1@�&2��(��&��(&��&� � ��

�� 2�7 &'��

�! 2�� &'��

�� &��&��&�� &:�

�� &?&'�� &)��

�� (�(&)� ��

�" 6� �(&� 4&�0/

�# ��&)��

�$ )��&��- �� &��&�� &:�

�� 5� (�� &)��

�� ) ��&� �&��

�� -�&)��&0&��

�! )�� &0&6� � ��

�� /�(&. ��&6�� &0&1�(��

�� :��(��

�� /4��&,��-

�" 1� ��&��+&.� � �

�# 1� ��&�� &��&)��&'��-

�$ 1� ��&@�� &0&'��

"� 6��&��&)��&'��- ��

"� ,� ��&3 � ��&0&� ��

"� ��7�&3��( ��

"! 2��&� ��&��(�� &0&��-�&*��(

"� !*&' ��&,��-

"� 2�(��(&3��&/4��

"� .�(��&' ��&�� &0&�� &��

"" )�� &��&5� �

"# ��( ��&��&!*&' ��

"$ *��+ ��&'�� (&��&!*&' ��

#� 2� ��(&!*&' ��

#� /��&��( �� &0&��

#� 6� � ��&0&)��

#! 1�(��A��(��&)�� 7 ��

#� /�(&. ��&6�� &0&1�(��

#� '��B��&)��

� �� &

� � ��&�� &��

! �� &'�� (

� )��&��

� *��+�&�&%&)�� &,��-

� � ��&��&.�&,��-

" /��&'�� &��

# '��&� ��&)��(&0&1� ��&� ��&��(��

$ ��

�� 2�(��(&3��&/4��

�� /4��&5� ��&0&'��&

�� .�(��&��&�� &��&5� ��&0&'��&

�! *� &��&0&6��- ��&��&5� ��&0&'��&

�� 2)&5� �&0&,� &��&5� ��&��(&'��&

�� &'��

�� ,��&6� �&'��

�" 5��-7 &��&5� ��&0&'��

�# /4��&0&)�� &'�(&��(��

�$ ��

�� /��&��&��+��-&

�� 1� ��&��&��-&'��-

�� 1� ��&'�� &��

�! � ��&'�� &��&��+��-

�� 7��&�� &0&/(��&'�� &��&2��7

�� 1� ��&2��7&)��

�� 7��&�� &0&/(��&'�� &��&� � �&��

�" ��&��- ��&��&� � �&��

�# ��(&+�( ��8&2� �7��&0&)��&��&� � �&��

�$ .�(�� &�� &0&�� &/��&'� ��

!� 1� ��&*� &��

!� )�� &*��(&��&��

!� )�� &/4��&)�� &,�

!! )�(( ��&0&)�� &,� ��

!� /4��&�� &0&�� &��

!� 1��&5��-+��-&,�

!� �0/&)�� &

!" ,�� &�� (

!# � �&��

!$ � � �&� 4&�0/

�� 1� ��&�� &9�� &�� &��&'��&:�

�� &� 4&��

�� (&��&�� &:�&0&*��(&��&

�! )�� &'��

�� (&� 4&�0/

�� &�0/&/;� ��&<'��&� �� 8&��&2��&0&��== >

�� (&� 4&�� &0&1'�

�" 1� ��&) �� &,�

�# ��&,��-&0&��&��

�$ �0�&)� ��

�� &��&'�� (&��&'��

�� '��&3 � �� &?&�1@�&2��(��&��(&��&� � ��

�� 2�7 &'��

�! 2�� &'��

�� &��&��&�� &:�

�� &?&'�� &)��

�� (�(&)� ��

�" 6� �(&� 4&�0/

�# ��&)��

�$ )��&��- �� &��&�� &:�

�� 5� (�� &)��

�� ) ��&� �&��

�� -�&)��&0&��

�! )�� &0&6� � ��

�� /�(&. ��&6�� &0&1�(��

�� :��(��

�� /4��&,��-

�" 1� ��&��+&.� � �

�# 1� ��&�� &��&)��&'��-

�$ 1� ��&@�� &0&'��

"� 6��&��&)��&'��- ��

"� ,� ��&3 � ��&0&� ��

"� ��7�&3��( ��

"! 2��&� ��&��(�� &0&��-�&*��(

"� !*&' ��&,��-

"� 2�(��(&3��&/4��

"� .�(��&' ��&�� &0&�� &��

"" )�� &��&5� �

"# ��( ��&��&!*&' ��

"$ *��+ ��&'�� (&��&!*&' ��

#� 2� ��(&!*&' ��

#� /��&��( �� &0&��

#� 6� � ��&0&)��

#! 1�(��A��(��&)�� 7 ��

#� /�(&. ��&6�� &0&1�(��

#� '��B��&)��

%�� &� �$�� '��

%� %! %� %� � � ! � � � " # $ �� ! �� " �# �$ �� ! �� " �# �$ !� !� !� !! !� !� !� !" !# !$ �� ! �� " �# �$ �� ! �� " �# �$ �� ! �� " �# �$ "� "� "� "! "� "� "��! !� " �� # � �� # �� # �� $ � �! �� " ! �� " �� # �� $ � �� $ �� $ �� ! � $ �� ! !� � �! �� " � �� # �� # �� $ � �! �� " ! �� " �� !� " �� # � �� $ �� $ �� ! !� " �� # �

��

� � �

�

Appendix D

Cost Plan & GIFA Schedule

Worksheets

Cover & Contents

Introduction

Typical Projects

Fee

Summary

People C

Equipment C

Pre-Construction C

Other People

Feasability Costs

Design Fees

Contents

Pricing Schedule

Invitation to Tender

Scape National Projects Agreement

Strategic Procurement Arrangement 2010-2014

Robertson Construction NEE Limited


Workington Leisure Centre - Pricing Schedule - Submitted

Pricing Schedule IntroductionAll 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.


Typical Project A B C D E F

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

Typical Projects for insertion in Schedule 11 of the Framework Agreement


Projects Defined Cost Value Band

Fee Percentage

(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%

Contractor's Fee Percentage ~

as defined in Schedule 11 of the Framework Agreement


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

Summary


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

No of % of WEEKLY TOTAL

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

£510,538.35

Rates to include all items listed in NEC Schedule of Cost

Components Items 11-13

Total of People Costs to Summary £

is value



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 Construction Period 70 Weeks - (Gateway 4 + [Start on Site]- 5)

SCHEDULE OF COST COMPONENTS - EQUIPMENT COSTS

QUANTITY WEEKS WEEKLY TOTAL

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

£42,087.00

SITE ACCOMMODATION

Total of Equipment Costs to Summary £



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 Construction Period 70 Weeks - (Gateway 4 + [Start on Site]- 5)

PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES - SCHEDULE OF COST COMPONENTS - PEOPLE COSTS



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)

£49,633.74

PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES - SCHEDULE OF COST COMPONENTS - PEOPLE COSTS



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

£30,731.40

Total £80,365.14



Total of People Costs (Pre-Construction) to Summary £



Total of People Costs (Pre-Construction - Co-ordinate & Manage) to Summary £

OTHER PEOPLE COSTS

HOURLY

COST £

STAFF GRADE

External Consultant £312.50Director £96.00Senior Manager £60.00Manager £48.00

Rates to be inclusive of all costs and disbursements as listed in NEC Schedule of Cost



��

��

��

��

��

��!"# �!"#$ �%��&��''�

��

�(�)

�!*"#(+,#-!*��

�!"#"

.� �� ! " " " "

.� � ��#$#!%� ��&�� '() �'�*+ "

. ��,!-#� �!� )��&�� )'.� )'.(+ "

.� �$�,!-��$��#/ ��&�� )'0� �'�(+ "

�'��

�+/"#(+,#+(��!#0�� 1�2�222�� *'*�+ )��

�'��

�� $#�� .0�&�� '1. )'�1+ "

�� 22�$��$� ��&�� )'�. �'�(+ "

�� 3 �1�&�� (�'�) �'(1+ "

� ��# $� (�&�� ('.� �'(1+ "

�� 4��$!#��#�� )�&�� )*'.� �'1(+ "

�� !-�5�&�4��$!#��$� ��&�� 0'(� �'.�+ "

�� !��$!#��#��67#$� � �!� .0�&�� '.� )'�1+ "

�3 �!��$!#��$� .�&�� 0'(( �'.�+ "

�'��

�+4�("#(+,#+(��!#0� .��52�222�� '0�+ )��

�'��

�� #�� ! �8�� &�� .'�1 �'�(+ "

�� $� ! �8�� *�&�� 0'*� �'(�+ "

�� !9� ! �8�� 1�&�� '.� �'1.+ "

�� 4�,$��6� �� !9� .��&�� 0�'*1 .'.�+ "

�'��

�*#�(*0��-*-"6�"��!#0� 152�222�� ('�)+ )��

�'��

5� :�%8#! %#��!��#��#� �! �&1(�&�� (�'1* �('�.+ "

5� ��%�$ %#��!��#��#� �! �&�(�&�� 10'11 ��'1*+ "

5� �2�% #� ��!��#��#� �!� 3��6;� �� " �'�� '��+ "

5 �, �-�$�5�$< !%�!!�%� �! *�&�� )'(� �'*)+ "

�'��

��(7-,�"��!#0� ��2�222�� '.1+ )��

�'��

8� � ��$<� ��&�� *�'.( �'..+ "

8� �$# !#9� �1�&�� *')� �'*�+ "

8� �4��$!#��$= %�� 0�&�� '(. �'0*+ "

8 7�#>�$�#?� ��&�� 1'(� �'��+ "

8� �2�$��7 �%8�� )��&�� )'�� )'�*+ "

8� ��3�#!-�%#2 !9 1�&�� '*( �'1.+ "

8� ;#$-#!-�%#2 !9 *�&�� 1'�) �'*)+ "

83 �4��$!#� 98� !9 ��&�� '.0 �'��+ "

8� �4��$!#��,$! �,$� ��&�� '�. �'��+ "

�'��

�''�� 3��9.2�222

�'��

�:#�(*0��;!(<"��!#0� .��52�222�� '.�+ )��

2�22

1 �� !�7$�= � �!#��,�� " �'�� '��+ "�'��

� �'��'��$� 1�822�222�� .�5�% )��

��"-�*��"� �1�&�0� �1'). �'*�+ "

��+(7�="$�#6�(��"� ��&*�) .'*� �'��+ "

��(��!*"#(+,#-!*��"-�*��"� .��&((� 0�'1� .'.�+ .��&((�

��(��!*"#(+,#-!*��+(7�="$�#6�(��"� (�&.�� (')) �'(*+ (�&.��

�-"<��#��"� >�% �.(&�� )1'.( �'11+ "

�"-�*��!*#-*��*,=� ��' ��?�� !%�' �!%�' �!%�' "

�*��!"#��!#0� ��.�5�� 0'(0+ ��.��

� �)��'�@��A ��5�.�5�� .��% ��.��

�(��-�-*0(-�"��)��"��0"0/-�-#=��!"#" �'�� '��+

7��2�� )��&)�( ��1'�� )'.(+ "

�@, 2��!� .�&�(* 0')0 �'.)+ "

7��2��7$�"��!��$,%� �!� .0&1�. ��'�� ')�+ "�7��2��7$�"��!��$,%� �!"��"�$- !#��6:#!#9�� &*�� *'�� '��+ ��&*��

�7�(6�0�"�0*��(!B-# .�15% �1�&��) ��'0. �'*�+ 0&�)�

�� .��1�� .22�22% 5��.85��

�-"<��!�0*,��@�0-*$�0-*A $� �!%�' �!%�' �!%�' �!%�'

�C� ��'��3� �� .��1�� .22�22% 5��.85��

��-�*#�-(�,#��!"#"

�� 9!�� ) @�0"��+4!*� 0:��-�*#��!��-#��*#A " �'�� '��+ "

�,$=�>�A��8�$�� ) @�0"��+4!*� 0:��-�*#��!��-#��*#A " �'�� '��+ "

7�#!! !9�22� %#� �!�� @�*,�+��-*��+(7�="$�#6�(��"A " �'�� '��+ "

7,/� %�$� @��0**-*��)��-"<��#��A " �'�� '��+ "

��,$! �,$�6�@, 2��!� @��-�*#��*#-B-��+�A " �'�� '��+ "

��;#$-5#$�A��3�5#$� @�*,�+��-#6-*�'!!"��+(*-#+(�A " �'�� '��+ "

��28�!�� @�*,�+��-#6-*�'!!"��+(*-#+(�A " �'�� '��+ "

��%#� �!�� @��-�*#��*#-B-��+�A " �'�� '��+ "

�&��''��@�C�' ��&��A ��.��1�� 2�22 .22�22% 5��.85��

Project: Workington Leisure Centre

Status: Feasability (RIBA Stage 1)

Schedule of Design Fees

Item Consultant

Pre-Construction

Design Fee

Construction Stage

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

Le ve l Are a type Are a (m²)

Ba se me nt

Basement plan 140

Net useable area 140

GIFA 140

G round 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 1 9

Cleaners store 2 9

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 Floor

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 1 10

Studio Store 2 12

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

Roof

Roof top plant 306

Net useable area 306

GIFA 306

Total Nett Not including roof plant 4122

Total GIFA Not including roof plant 4389

Appendix 7: Risk Register

Risk Register: New Sports Centre

4

3

2

1

3

2

1

4 5 7

6

1 2 3 4

Impact

Likelihood

Likelihood:

1. Very unlikely 2. Unlikely 3. Likely 4. Very likely

Impact:

1. Minor 2. Significant 3. Serious 4. Major

No. Risk Likelihood/ Impact

Mitigation Actions / Comments

Target Date R/A/G Escalate Y/N

Responsible Officer

1

Failure to agree site within proposed timescales

2/4

Public Consultation Communications plan Members presented with

final options for approval

13 November 2013

N

Corporate Director

2

Failure to bring site forward for development (depending on site selected)

2/3

Planning consultant to be appointed

Planning permission required

Mineral rights issues to be resolved

Intrusive site investigation works

31 January 2013

N

Corporate Director

3

Failure to agree adequate funding for the development

3/4

External funding

opportunities to be explored

Funding package put in place

Council capital provided through borrowing and asset sales

Clarification of projects Costs needed following

consultation

31 December 2013

N

Corporate Director (Resources)

4

New site not financially viable

1/3

Business Plan review

commissioned including third party advice/ financial modelling

Subject to management fee agreement.

31 December 2013

N

Corporate Director

5

Lack of community buy in, in site selection process

1/3

Stakeholder consultation

plan in place Communications plan to

be developed

30 September 2013

N

Head of Community Services

6

Procurement options not fully considered for build and / or operation

1/4

Procurement paper

commissioned Report presented to

Members for consideration

13 November 2013

N

Corporate Director

7

Project not delivered in line with Council Objectives / priorities

2/3

Managed through

Performance Management Framework Specific resources

allocated to project Other mitigations for

risks 1-6 delivered Principles of operation to

be discussed with Members

31 December 2013

N


8

Failure to agree management arrangements

1/4

Consider management

options Discuss with CLL and

vary contract if and when appropriate

31 March 2014

N


Appendix 8: Scape Project Process Map

...making it happen

3STAGES C/D

Pre-Construction Develop Design

>

1 STAGE A

Inception

GATEWAY 1

Initial Client Brief

Access Agreement Issued

Issue Framework Manual

Confirm Funds Secured

Confirm & Develop Brief

Appoint CDM Coordinator

Project Checklist

Appoint PM and QS

Consultant Selection

DQI/AEDAT briefing

Project Execution Plan

Initial Planning Enquiry

Options Appraisal

Hold Launch Meeting

Design Team Meetings

Design Proposals

Initial Cost Plan

VM & Risk Workshops

Select Supply Chain

Mid Design DQI & KPI Review

Design Freeze

Update Costs

Develop H&S Plan

Planning Application

Key to shading

Client owned tasks

Jointly owned tasks

Contractor owned tasks

5STAGES J/K

Construction Mobilisation

Construction Design Information

Review H&S Plan

Review Risk Register

Update Target Cost

Testing & Commissioning

Handover

Issue PC Certificate

Make Good Defects

KPI Review

Feedback

4STAGES E-H

Pre-Construction Detailed Design

Formalise Appointments

Prepare Target Costs

Prepare Contractors Proposals

Detailed Design Information

Ongoing VE & VM Reviews

Continue Liason with Planning

Submit & Obtain Planning

Finalise Risk Register

Finalise Programme

Finalise H&S Plan etc

KPI Review

Formalise Contract Data

Submit Target Cost

Evaluation of Target Cost

Agree All Documents & Costs

Raise Order

Sign Memorandum of Agreement

2 STAGE B

Feasibility

Access Agreement Signed

Issue Project Request

Select Design Option

Value Management Workshop

Risk Workshop & Risk Register

Surveys

Outline Programme

Feasibility Report

RACI Workshop

Agree Pre-Construction Scope

Agree Pre-Construction Cost

Project Order

6STAGE L

Post Project Completion

Post Project Review

Issue Defects Certificate

Agree Final Contract Sum

Lessons Learnt

DQI/AEDAT Review

GATEWAY 2

Project Doable

GATEWAY 3

First Designs & Costs

GATEWAY 4

Information to Contract

GATEWAY 6

Review

Post OccupationEvaluation

GATEWAY 5

Build

>

>

>

>

>

7 Finish

Project Process Map