Decision details

The Executive Cabinet considered a confidential report of the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services on proposals to secure the completion of initial refurbishment works at Brinscall Pool, and subsequent operational arrangements, in order to secure its medium to long-term future.

A recent survey had revealed the necessity for initial essential repairs and maintenance work to be undertaken at a capital cost of £190,000.  The completion of additional non-essential repair and maintenance works would need to be addressed as a medium to long term project.

The report also recommended the incorporation within the recently negotiated contract with Community Leisure Services for the management of All Seasons and Clayton Green Leisure Centres of provision for the operation of Brinscall Pool, subject to the insertion of break clauses to safeguard the Council’s interest in the event of major failings.  It was envisaged that the likely annual operation costs of £37,000 would be met from the current contract provision for repairs and maintenance.

Decisions made:

1.      That approval be given to the recommended approach to safeguarding the medium to long-term future of Brinscall Pool as outlined in the submitted report.

2.      That provision for both the initial capital investment of £190,000 for essential major work at Brinscall Pool and the ongoing revenue contribution of £37,000 for the operation of the Pool be considered as part of the Council’s budget deliberations for 2007/08.

3.      That responsibility be delegated to the Indoor Leisure Committee to approve any variations to the contractual arrangements outlined in the submitted report.

Reason for decision:

The proposals are aimed at safeguarding the medium to long-term future of the Brinscall Pool.

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected:

A decision not to invest in Brinscall Pool was rejected and it was likely that the decision could lead ultimately to the closure of the Pool.

The transfer of the Pool to community management was rejected as there was no local support for this model of delivery.