Agenda item

To provide the Panel with an update on leisure provision (report of the Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture enclosed.)

 

Also attending for this item will be:

·         Parkwood, the current leisure provider, to provide the Panel with an update on performance; and

·         Max Associates, to provide the Panel with identified leisure priorities within the South and East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership (S&ELCP)

 

Members will have the opportunity to ask questions. Should any questions relate to exempt information the Panel will need to resolve to go into closed session after all open issues have been dealt with.

The Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture provided the Panel with an update report on leisure provision performance and the development of the future options and opportunities for leisure provision in South Holland.  The update included presentations from Parkwood Leisure (the current leisure provider), and leisure consultants, Max Associates.

 

The Regional Director and Area Manager of Parkwood Leisure delivered a presentation to the Panel which outlined the main achievements and challenges the company had experienced since the contract had been awarded in 2019, and their future plans for the sites. The key points included:

• contract handover and site investment, which incorporated:

• • brand refresh;
  • investment in a new Spin Studio;
  • upgrade of cardiovascular gym equipment;
  • sensory pool; and
  • deep cleaning of swimming pool changing rooms and staff training;
• the impact of Covid 19 lockdowns on staffing and facility usage;
• the Covid 19 recovery phase which had concentrated on increasing customer confidence and usage;
• membership trajectories: swimming memberships had performed particularly well since July 2021 and were now above pre-Covid levels.
• national trend challenges: inflation, utilities and workforce;
• opportunities for energy and carbon reduction;
• marketing;
• proposals for 2022/2023 included:
  • the ‘reversible’ repurposing of the financially unsustainable bar and café areas at the Spalding site, to a ‘wellness area’
  • flexibility on programming and pricing;
  • Bowls Club provision;
  • investment of gym equipment at both Spalding and Long Sutton sites;
  • increased virtual classes; and
  • Holiday and Activities Food Programme.

 

The Panel considered the presentation and made the following comments:

 

• Members asked which methods of marketing had been employed.
  • The Parkwood representative responded that costs had been considered when the marketing strategy had been planned. Most of the activity had taken place online, including social media, however leaflets had also been produced which were distributed to council offices and libraries. The intention was to widen distribution and activity throughout the district.

 

·         Members asked whether inflationary rises would be passed on to customers and if so, had an impact on memberships been anticipated.

 

• Members asked whether the leisure facilities had sufficient staff to ensure all aspects of the contract could be delivered. Facilities had been closed at short notice and customers had not been advised.

o   Parkwood confirmed that they had increased the employee complement since taking over the contract and that both facilities were fully staffed. Sufficient staff were required to be in place to adhere to health and safety responsibilities and for the facility to remain open. Short notice closures were unfortunate but had occurred due to employee Covid 19 infections and customers had been contacted, where contact details were held by the organisation. Mitigations had been in place to minimise short-notice closure issues as much as possible.

 

·         Members asked whether the staff were paid the national minimum wage or an enhanced wage.

o   Parkwood responded that they employed a number of young staff who were paid the national minimum wage. The rate had risen in line with this standard. Those with greater responsibility were paid enhanced rates.

·         Members commented that the requirement to provide a bar and eating area had been stipulated in the contract and therefore the proposal to repurpose these areas represented a diminution of the facilities.

o   The Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture referred to the minutes of the previous meeting (9 November 2021, p.29) which had noted the previous discussion. Work on vending and catered options for the Bowls club was ongoing. The repurpose of the bar and eating area was not a permanent change and could revert should the service become financially viable.

 

·      Members had been encouraged by the usage figures for both sites since Covid 19 reopening and asked if any areas had proved difficult to deliver.

o    The Parkwood representative responded that there was confidence in the continued recovery which had begun prior to the Omicron variant impacting usage during December 2021. Growth had started to return.

 

·      Members enquired whether Parkwood had similar arrangements at other venues where bowls clubs were users of the facilities.

o    The Parkwood representative confirmed that the organisation worked with two other sites in Breckland where bowls clubs were users, however Spalding Bowls club ran differently due to:

§  the larger size of hall used; and

§  Spalding Bowls Club’s ability to attract a wide range of users, from beginners to elite.

o   Parkwood recognised some issues had existed, but the organisation had tried to encourage the relationship with the Bowls Club and would continue to do so. Summer holiday initiatives, at lower rates than contractually obliged, had been offered.

 

 

·      Members asked whether Parkwood had considered arrangements between the Bowls Club and Parkwood to be harmonious. Feedback to members had suggested this had not been the case.

o   The Parkwood representative had attended Bowls committee meetings which had resulted in positive outcomes and had highlighted challenges. Parkwood endeavoured to work in partnership with the Bowls Club which had resulted in the club having their own hot drink vending machine and kiosk; reduced fees had been honoured for the current season; and Parkwood would assist the Club where they could. Nonetheless, the bowling area was a large space and the increased cost of heating and lighting needed to be shared. The increase in charges to the club would not fully offset the increased energy costs.

 

·      Members relayed positive feedback to Parkwood in respect of cleanliness of the sites and the school holiday activities but questioned whether the organisation had been ambitious enough with its marketing and targets. Point 2.6 (p.63) stated that sales of 146% had been achieved for a specific period however memberships were still low.  Whilst gym usage had recovered at the Spalding site, it had not returned to pre-Covid levels at the Long Sutton site. Members questioned whether the same marketing effort had been employed at both sites.

o   The Parkwood representative responded that recovery comparisons with the industry standard were positive, and that performance was in the top quartile nationally. The Peele site had experienced a larger reduction of usage since Covid reopening, with feedback from users stating the perception that the facilities were deemed less safe due to its situation on a school site  Parkwood acknowledged that further work was required at the Peele site and that they had been keen to see a recovery. New gym equipment would be installed in April 2022.

 

·      Members requested evidence of the monthly contract meetings and of complaints recorded.

o   Parkwood confirmed that monthly meetings had taken place with SHDC officers. The officers had possession of customer feedback records.

o   The Chairman responded that customer complaint monitoring processes were in place. In addition, any concerns raised with Members could be brought to the regular PMP six-monthly Leisure update which officers would then be able address.

 

The Chairman concluded this section of the discussion by stating that further questions needed to be taken in closed session. The representatives from Parkwood were thanked for their attendance. The Panel agreed that any further questions for Parkwood be relayed after the meeting, and for responses to be brought back via the senior officer.

 

A representative from Max Associates attended to give a presentation to the Panel which outlined the work carried out prior to Covid 19 and future workflow options. The presentation covered the following areas:

·      Strategy;

·      Progress made on the future planning for leisure pre-Covid;

·      Introduction to the Strategic Outcomes Planning Model;

·      Leisure’s link to the Council’s corporate priorities;

·      Community and stakeholder insight and engagement;

·      Geographical location of users;

·      Ambition for leisure across the district;

·      Requirements of facilities;

·      Site options;

·      Existing site analysis;

·      Future workstreams; and

·      Actions.

 

Members welcomed the presentation and acknowledged the positive work that had taken place to date. A note of caution was raised regarding costly investment in leisure consultants which had previously not delivered tangible outcomes. A meaningful outcome was being sought.

 

·         Members asked when they would be able to input their views regarding new leisure provision facilities. The concept of a leisure centre as a destination needed to be considered in the plans and to include social areas for meeting, eating and drinking. Had this been considered?

 

• Members welcomed the council’s aspiration to deliver a wellbeing service to the whole of the district and stated that member involvement in the shaping of any new provision would be beneficial, in particular that: a 3G or 4G pitch would be financially sustainable and yield revenue; and private village halls could be used to ensure a provision across the district.

o   The representative from Max Associates confirmed that sports halls across the district would be considered, whether publicly or privately owned.

 

·         Members requested sight of a costed plan. Was one available?

o   When an agreed offer was established, the Council would need to decide how this would be delivered.

 

·         Members stated that a new facility for Spalding was urgently needed and would serve to bring socio-economic benefits to the district. Members stated that the delivery of a new facility had been promised by the end of the  current council term. A timeline for the costed plan was requested:

o   The Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture responded that health and leisure was a priority in the annual delivery plan for the next financial year. The pre-Covid planning work with Max Associates would be revisited to ensure relevance. This would be followed by business case planning and consultation with stakeholders, including members. The timeline was not fixed as the process involved working with colleagues, such as Economic Growth, but it was hoped this would move forward within the next 3 to 6 months.

 

·         Members asked whether research had taken place at facilities outside of the district, to inform ideas and become a leader in leisure provision.

o   The Max Associates representative confirmed that they were well-placed to understand the landscape as they were involved in projects across the country and in Europe. An aim for the Spalding provision was to understand the aspiration and to create a building which fulfilled the needs of residents and therefore attracted attendance.

 

·         Members voiced frustration that the leisure facility had been discussed many times over the last ten years and nothing had been achieved. The lack of leisure provision was unappealing for potential residents. The Council had agreed to the building of many new homes but had not engaged developers in contributing to the leisure provision. It was suggested that the granting of planning consent should be conditional upon contributions to the delivery of leisure. This could not be done in hindsight.

 

 

·         Members queried whether the Max Associates consultancy work encompassed the S&ELCP or solely South Holland. In addition, as Holbeach had seen recent expansion due to new housing developments, were new leisure facilities being considered for the town?

o   The representative from Max Associates responded that the project focussed on South Holland.

 

Members stated that the Panel had shown enthusiasm to move this item forward and that the Executive needed to respond to the planning/delivery timeline question. It was requested that the Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture attend PMP in 3 months to update the Panel regarding progress.

 

AGREED:

 

a)    That the report be noted; and

 

b)    A further progress update to come forward to the Panel in 3 months’ time.