Client Services (Community and Leisure Services) Sub-Committee 4 November 2004
From Nigov
C2986
Thursday, 4th November, 2004
Contents |
SPECIAL MEETING OF CLIENT SERVICES (COMMUNITY AND LEISURE SERVICES) SUB-COMMITTEE
Members present: The High Sheriff (Councillor Patterson); and Councillors D. Browne, Convery, Lavery, McCann, O'Neill, Stoker and Walsh.
Also attended: The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor O’Donnell); and Councillors M. Browne, W. Browne, Crozier, A. Maskey, McClenaghan, Rodgers and E. Smyth.
In attendance:
- Mr. M. Elder, Director of Client Services;
- Mr. P. Lucas, Head of Recreation and Community Development;
- Mr. P. Kelly, Recreation Services Manager; and
- Mr. H. Downey, Committee Administrator.
Apology
An apology for inability to attend was reported from the Chairman (Councillor Cush).
Chairing of Meeting
In the absence of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, the Sub-Committee agreed that Councillor Convery take the Chair.
(Councillor Convery in the Chair.)
South Belfast Leisure Centre
(Mr. C. Smyth, Assistant Project Manager, attended in connection with this item.)
The Sub-Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 7th September, it had agreed to defer to a special meeting consideration of the options for the replacement of the Maysfield Leisure Centre and had agreed further that the undernoted information be provided to enable discussion in the matter to be conducted within each of the Party Groupings represented on the Council:
(i) a breakdown of the costs associated with the replacement of the existing changing accommodation on the Ormeau Park site;
(ii) clarification of the inclusion of an amount of £1.3 million as an opportunity cost within the estimated costs of the Ormeau Park site;
(iii) a review of the figure of £8 million as an opportunity cost identified in respect of the Maysfield site so as to differentiate between the provision of a full replacement, joint development or no development option;
(iv) the percentage of area to be occupied by a leisure facility within a joint development at the Maysfield site; and
(v) the estimated revenue to be obtained from car parking charges being levied within a joint development at the Maysfield site.
The Sub-Committee was reminded further that, at its meeting on 5th October, it had agreed that PricewaterhouseCoopers be invited to attend the special meeting to provide a further presentation, including clarification of the issues which had been raised at the meeting on 7th September.
The Head of Recreation and Community Development submitted for the Sub Committee’s consideration reports which had been prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers in respect of the undertaking of a public consultation exercise and the evaluation of the four possible sites identified for the replacement of the Maysfield Leisure Centre, together with a development study which provided a detailed appraisal on planning issues and development options in respect of each site. He submitted also the undernoted report which had been prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, in consultation with Council officers, providing clarification of the issues which had been raised at the meeting on 7th September.
It was reported that Mr. G. Hetherington, Mr. P. McDonagh and Ms. M. Treacy, PricewaterhouseCoopers, together with Mr. J. McNeill, Consarc Design Group, and Mr. H. McLearnon, Professional Service Centre Limited, were in attendance and they were admitted to the meeting and welcomed by the Acting Chairman (Councillor Convery).
Mr. McDonagh, with the assistance of visual aids, reviewed the content of the report relating to the evaluation of the four possible site options and the two development options for the replacement of the Maysfield Leisure Centre. A copy of the Executive Summary of the report, together with the conclusions and recommendations contained therein, is set out hereunder.
Mr. McDonagh reviewed in detail the issues which had been raised by the Sub Committee at its meeting on 7th September, highlighted, in particular, the valuations £8 million and £1.3 million which had been placed upon the Maysfield and Ormeau Park sites, respectively, and explained how each valuation had been derived. He stated that these figures were critical in so far as any comparison of the sites, based upon cost, would be subject to assumptions made in respect of their valuation.
During discussion, a Member highlighted the fact that the proposal in respect of the Maysfield site related to the provision of a joint development and enquired as to whether the consultants had assessed the possibility of providing a full-scale replacement facility thereat as he was of the view that the type of facility to be provided on the Maysfield site should not be based solely upon the site valuation. He suggested that the residents of South Belfast should be consulted to ascertain if they would be in agreement to the development of a reduced facility on the Maysfield site. The view was expressed also that the Ormeau Park was not situated within a neutral area and the views of the consultants were sought in this regard.
In response, Mr. McDonagh informed the Sub-Committee that the consultants had undertaken a cost analysis in relation to the provision of a full-scale replacement leisure facility upon the Maysfield site and provided details in this regard. He stated that PricewaterhouseCoopers was of the view, however, that the provision of a full-scale facility did not represent efficient use of such a valuable site. Ms. Treacy provided details of research which had been conducted in respect of perceptions relating to the neutrality and safety of the Maysfield and Ormeau Park sites and that little difference had been highlighted.
The Acting Chairman (Councillor Convery) thanked the members of the deputation for being in attendance and they retired from the meeting.
During further discussion, a Member pointed out that the Maysfield Leisure Centre had been the Council's most utilised leisure facility and that it had attracted all sections of the community. He made the point that the Ormeau Park site could not be regarded as being neutral and suggested, therefore, that a leisure facility should be developed on the Maysfield site. However, it was pointed out by a Member that both communities availed of sports facilities at the Ormeau Park and that the main entrance to the Park was located on the Ormeau Embankment. A further Member expressed the view that South Belfast should be provided with the same level of leisure facilities as other areas of the City and suggested that, since the Ormeau Park was situated in a neutral area and offered the potential for the development of a larger leisure centre, it should be viewed as being the preferred option. He added that considerable research and consultation had been conducted in South Belfast in relation to the provision of a replacement leisure facility and expressed the view that no benefit would be derived from undertaking further consultation in this regard.
After further discussion, it was
Moved by Councillor Stoker, Seconded by the High Sheriff (Councillor Patterson),
That the Sub-Committee agrees that the replacement leisure facility for South Belfast be developed within the Ormeau Park.
Amendment
Moved by Councillor McCann, Seconded by Councillor Lavery,
That the Sub-Committee agrees that a consultation exercise be carried out in South Belfast to ascertain whether a reduced leisure facility should be provided on the Maysfield site or a replacement facility developed within the Ormeau Park.
On a vote by show of hands three Members voted for the amendment and three against. There being an equality of votes, the Acting Chairman (Councillor Convery) exercised his second and casting vote in favour of the amendment and it was accordingly declared carried.
The amendment was thereupon put to the meeting as the substantive motion, when three Members voted for and three against it. There being an equality of votes, the Acting Chairman (Councillor Convery) exercised his second and casting vote in favour of the substantive motion and it was accordingly declared carried.
Chairman
