Agenda item

Resolved: to note the report and to consider an item at a future meeting on the performance of the Fusion leisure contract.

6.1      David Walton (Community Assets Manager) introduced the report; the following key points were noted:

• Usage of the borough’s leisure facilities had significantly increased, led by the opening of Glass Mill leisure centre.
• Monitoring information indicated that 45% of regular users had a BeActive card, indicating that the Council was meeting the objective of increasing participation in all parts of the population.
• There had been a number of other recent positive community and social projects.
• It was recognised that the Bridge was the weakest link in the leisure contract.
• Some defects had been identified at Glass Mill, but these were being rectified in line with the contract.

6.2      David Walton (Community Assets Manager) and Aileen Buckton (Executive Director for Community Services) responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

• The contract was ‘self-monitoring’, but the contractor was obliged to report issues to the Council.
• The term ‘self-monitoring’ referred to the structure of the contract, in practice there were regular formal and informal site visits by the contract monitoring officer.
• Fusion were also responsible for reporting user feedback and responding to complaints.
• The contract was outcome based, so it was up to the contractor to decide how it would meet the specifications requested.
• Action had been taken against the contractor and fines had been applied in a number of instances, where problems had been identified.
• The defects at Glass Mill leisure centre were the responsibility of the developer (Barratt) to rectify and not the leisure contractor (Fusion), but difficulties with new buildings were not uncommon.
• The Bridge leisure centre was nearing the end of its useful life. There was no investment element in the Fusion contract, so some improvement works would take place, but there would not be any major refurbishment of the site.
• Concerns about the quality of the Fusion cleaning contract were recognised and had been raised with the contractor.
• On the list of works to be carried out at the Bridge were: the painting of the sports hall; new gym flooring; air conditioning; repairs to the ceiling above the main pool; retiling in wet areas as well as works to the drains to resolve a longstanding issue.
• Work would be started in the New Year, with much being completed by the end of the financial year. However, a precise timescale for the completion of works could not be given.
• Disabled people should not be turned away from using leisure facilities. Any reported cases should be passed to officers.
• Further work would be carried out to determine why the levels of exercise on referral were low.
• The swimming ability of school age children was a concern. The inability of a proportion of school age children to swim was the result of a combination of a number of factors; officers were working on initiatives to improve swimming ability of children.

6.3      In response to a question about the Committee’s ability to review the key performance indicators of the Fusion contract, Georgina Nunney (Principal Lawyer) advised that any review of the contract would have to be considered by the Committee in a closed session, with the press and public excluded.

Resolved: to note the report and to consider an item at a future meeting on the performance of the Fusion leisure contract.