Issue - meetings
Bridge Park - options
Meeting: 17/02/2014 - Executive (Item 13)
This report provides information regarding progress on the redevelopment of the Unisys and Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre (BPCLC) sites. It provides detail on the outcome of the public consultation undertaken at the request of the Executive to gain the public’s preference on a number of facility options for the provision of a replacement leisure centre. The report also provides an update to Members on the current position on anticipated land receipt and Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) contributions. The June Executive report indicated that any of the four facility options could be funded from the land receipt and varying proportions of CIL. This paper looks in more detail at the risks associated with a ‘subject to planning’ deal and sets out the most likely land receipt and associated CIL payment, and details which leisure centre options are likely to be affordable.
Decision:
(i) that agreement be given to the vision and objectives of the new leisure centre;
(ii) that approval be given to the preferred leisure centre option as (Option 3), as set out at paragraph 3.18;
(iii) that it be noted that the large majority of respondents, approximately 95%, selected as their first choice one or more of the four Options that involved change at Bridge Park, while approximately 5% of respondents selected as their first choice the option for leaving Bridge Park as it is and that at the appropriate time GMH will lead on further planning related public consultation;
(iv) that the proposed appointment of project consultants be noted;
(v) that the land value and CIL receipt risks and the implications on the affordability of the different leisure centre facility options be noted. Should the sale of land not elicit the necessary capital receipt and advanced CIL, officers will return to Members to agree an alternate way forward.
(vi) that it be noted that a further report will be submitted to the Executive prior to the tender for a Design and Build Contractor.
Minutes:
Councillor Crane (Lead Member, Regeneration and Major Projects) introduced the report which provided information regarding progress on the redevelopment of the Unisys and Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre (BPCLC) sites. It provided detail on the outcome of the public consultation undertaken at the request of the Executive to gain the public’s preference on a number of facility options for the provision of a replacement leisure centre. The report also provided an update to members on the current position on anticipated land receipt and Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) contributions.
Councillor Crane advised that following the decision to pursue a land sale to General Mediterranean Holdings (owners of the adjacent Unisys site) consultation on design options supported the provision of a new leisure centre with a swimming pool. He referred members to the capital costs of delivering the preferred leisure centre, £8.3m. The revenue costs of the new facility were anticipated to be lower than the current running costs and efforts were being made to obtain funding from Sport England.
Councillor Mashari (Lead Member, Environment and Neighbourhoods) emphasised the need for additional fitness facilities in the south of the borough and referred to the finding that approximately 50% of Brent’s adult population undertook no sporting or moderately intensive physical activity. The current facility was under used and in need of repair and there were alternative function facilities for hire for example at The Hub, Unity Centre and the Children’s Centre. Councillor McLennan referred to new facilities at Vale Farm Sports Centre, welcoming the transformation.
RESOLVED:
(i) that agreement be given to the vision and objectives of the new leisure centre;
(ii) that approval be given to the preferred leisure centre option as (Option 3), as set out at paragraph 3.18 of the report from the Strategic Director, Regeneration and Growth;
(iii) that it be noted that the large majority of respondents, approximately 95%, selected as their first choice one or more of the four options that involved change at Bridge Park, while approximately 5% of respondents selected as their first choice the option for leaving Bridge Park as it is and that at the appropriate time GMH will lead on further planning related public consultation;
(iv) that the proposed appointment of project consultants be noted;
(v) that the land value and CIL receipt risks and the implications on the affordability of the different leisure centre facility options be noted. Should the sale of land not elicit the necessary capital receipt and advanced CIL, officers would return to members to agree an alternate way forward;
(vi) that it be noted that a further report would be submitted to the Executive prior to the tender for a Design and Build Contractor.