Agenda item

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information, and which are not published elsewhere)

Cllr V Gay – Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Wellbeing and Culture introduced the report and informed Members that it was an exercise in reflective practice, with lessons learned included for consideration. She added that the report sought to address how the project had dealt with the constraints that all projects shared, which included time, funding and purpose. It was noted that construction was originally planned to finish in November 2021, and this deadline had been met despite delays caused by Covid-19. In terms of budget, it was reported that there had been some slippage, but this had been reported to the Committee from January 2021 onwards, and the project had still been completed without the need for any long-term borrowing. In regards to purpose, it was noted that membership had tripled since the closure of Splash, and was far higher than expected in the original feasibility study. Cllr V Gay stated that the Reef had been made as accessible as possible with changing places facilities, and the number of schools using the facility had risen from two to nine. She added that the table of lessons learned was very insightful, and could apply to all projects undertaken by the Council.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that it was commendable that the project had progressed throughout multiple administrations, spanning approximately eight years from the planning stage. He added that when the report was requested it had been suggested it would cover all aspects from planning to completion, but future reports could be requested on matters such as usage and energy efficiency. Cllr N Dixon noted that he did not feel the budget slippage was significant, given the overall cost of the project, and expected many other authorities would have struggled to achieve the same. It was noted that the Committee’s recommendation to bring forward demolition of the old facility forward had been accepted and was a positive contribution to the phasing of the project, which had helped to address the delays caused by Covid-19, and shown that the Committee could work well overseeing major projects.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to the project recommendations outlined in the report and proposed a recommendation that these should be considered in further detail by GRAC.

     iii.          Cllr S Penfold agreed with comments that £100k slippage on a project of this size was minimal, and a superb facility had been delivered that was evident from membership levels. He referred to the lessons learned appendix which suggested that the final build stages of the project were rushed, and noted that the architect would usually be expected to sign-off building work rather than the contractor. He asked whether it would have been worthwhile seeking external evaluation, and whether this would have helped. Cllr V Gay replied that it was her understanding that there had been an external review of the building works prior to sign-off, but there had been comments made during the interview process that some aspects had been rushed towards the end of the project. She added that she could not comment on the actions of the contractor, as she had not been involved in the operational aspects of construction, but she could seek to provide a written reply. Cllr S Penfold noted that there were clear issues with allowing the contractor to sign-off their own work, and this was something that would be helpful to understand. He added that it would also be helpful to know how ongoing monitoring would take place, and whether the management company would report this to NNDC on a regular basis. Cllr V Gay replied that she was unsure of the reporting process, but regular reports were received and meetings held, but she would need to seek clarification. She added that this would be an opportune point to raise energy efficiency, as it had been noted by Everyone Active that the equipment had not been set-up to their specifications long enough to determine exact energy usage, but it was hoped that this would be reported in due course.

    iv.          The Chairman asked whether it could be confirmed how the building work had been signed-off, to which the CE replied that during the final stage of construction some decisions had been influenced by the availability of materials and other delays caused by Covid-19. He added that the project also had to be signed-off prior to receiving Sport England approval, therefore whilst there may not be absolute clarity about the process, it had been completed appropriately in respect of grant funding and financial approval. It was confirmed in response to a follow-up question from the Chairman that clarification of this process would be sought in advance of any further review by GRAC. The CPPM noted that the interviews had suggested that it was the finishing touches of certain works that were rushed and may not have been signed-off correctly.

      v.          Cllr A Brown noted that it was useful to look at lessons learned, but it was also important to recognise that the project had been a tremendous success whilst other local authorities were seeking to close their leisure facilities.

    vi.          Cllr J Toye asked whether there would be any follow-up or action plan in relation to the project, such as developing a register of expertise that could be referred to for future projects.

   vii.          Cllr L Withington reiterated positive comments made on the delivery of the project and noted that it had overcome many difficulties in the local community to deliver an excellent facility, as evidenced by the growing membership. She added that there were some points that should be addressed, such as there being no consistent point of contact for external stakeholders, which had contributed to issues such as the negative comments received on the loss of wave machines. It was noted that this could have been dealt with better, and should be considered for future projects. On technical expertise, Cllr L Withington noted that the Council could not be expected to hold the level of expertise required on all major projects, and should be ready to seek this externally as and when required. She added that it was unfortunate that the environmental impact was yet to be considered, as there was likely to be some positive news, which should be considered at a future date.

  viii.          Cllr J Rest asked whether it was possible to enquire about what would happen to the remainder of the site. The CE replied that he would seek to provide a written reply as a planning application had been received for a hotel, but he was unaware of full details. Cllr E Seward added that there was a provisional legal agreement, subject to planning approval, but the proposals were being progressed. It was suggested that a briefing note would be prepared and shared with the Committee.

    ix.          Cllr H Blathwayt asked whether there was any evidence of the tourism offer being impacted by the facility and whether any positive feedback had been received. The CE replied that there had not been any formal analysis of the tourism impact, but there were more users in August 2022, than had ever previously been recorded.

      x.          Cllr V Gay stated that the recommendations would be considered by the CDU, and whilst sustainability had been addressed in the paper, energy efficiency would be considered in due course once the data was available. She added that expertise would always be a challenge for an authority of NNDC’s size, and this should be considered at the start of every project.

    xi.          The Chairman noted that there were aspects of the project that would benefit from future consideration such as energy efficiency, its impact on local tourism and the final settlement of accounts. The Chairman suggested that these matters should form part of a future composite report once the information was available, and this could be proposed for the 2023/24 Work Programme. He added that GRAC may want to consider the availability of expertise for projects as part of their consideration.

   xii.          The recommendation to request that GRAC review the recommendations outlined within the lessons learned log was proposed by Cllr C Cushing and seconded by Cllr N Dixon.

RESOLVED

1.     To note the report and lessons learnt log (appendix A) for future projects and ensure consistent management through lifetime of project.

2.     To recommend that the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee review the recommendations outlined within the lessons learnt log (appendix A) and risks identified within the report.

ACTIONS

1.     To request that a future report be proposed for the Committee’s 2023-24 Work Programme to include details of financial settlement, energy use/efficiency, impact on local tourism and user numbers.

2.     To request that a written response be provided by the CE on plans for the remaining vacant area of the site, to be shared with the wider Committee and GRAC Chairman.

3.     Cllr V Gay to provide written reply on building work sign-off and clarification of ongoing monitoring process.