Leisure Facilities Strategy Wrexham County Borough Council
Post on 18-Mar-2016
28 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
1
Leisure Facilities StrategyWrexham County Borough Council
Final Version 13 November 2013
2
Contents 1.Our brief
2.Facilities overview and mapping
3.Review of the physical infrastructure
4.Usage analysis
5.Financial performance
6.Supply and demand of leisure facilities
7.Consultation
8.New Facility Feasibility
9.Recommendations
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
3
Our brief•Wrexham County Borough Council directly operates a portfolio of 11 sports facilities. Against the backdrop of targeted budget savings across the Council the cost of operating its leisure portfolio has been brought into sharper focus. The Sports Consultancy has been appointed to undertake a Leisure Facilities Strategy to identify the most appropriate mix of facilities, taking into consideration likely community need, current usage and the net costs of operating and maintaining the facilities.
•The current portfolio consists of 5 community use facilities and 6 dual use facilities (which are located at and shared by schools):
1. Waterworld (community wet and dry centre)2. Plas Madoc Leisure Centre (community wet and dry centre)3. Chirk (community wet and dry centre)4. Gwyn Evans (community wet and dry centre) 5. Queensway (athletics track, grass pitch and dry centre)6. Clywedog (dual use wet and dry centre)7. Rhosnesni (dual use wet and dry centre)8. Ruabon (dry only)9. Morgan Llwyd (dry only)10. Darland (dry only)11. Grango Synthetic Turf Pitch
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
4
Our brief• The current net annual cost of operating the portfolio (excluding depreciation) was £1.8m in the 2012/13 financial year. • In tandem with the development of this Leisure Facilities Strategy, The Sports Consultancy has also undertaken a New
Leisure Facility Feasibility on behalf of the Council. This has recommended the replacement of both Plas Madoc Leisure Centre and Waterworld on a site currently occupied by the Crown Buildings in the centre of Wrexham town centre. Together, these two current leisure facilities cost almost £900,000 to operate (or £1.2m including depreciation). Plas Madoc has reached the end of its useful life and is not considered fit for purpose; whereas Waterworld’s potential for its required extension and improvement is limited on its current footprint due to boundary constraints.
• The recommendations that form part of this Facilities Strategy take into consideration:
1. The physical condition of each of the leisure facilities2. Future repairs and maintenance 3. Actual usage of the facilities 4. Consultation with user groups and stakeholders5. The ongoing cost of operating the facilities6. Location and catchments7. Supply and demand for leisure facilities in the County Borough8. Potential for a new leisure centre.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
5
Wrexham portfolio
Wrexham has a total of 12 public leisure facilities serving a County Borough
population of 130,000. This portfolio comprises:
• 5 Council (community) facilities (indicated in red)
• 6 dual-use (school) facilities (green)
• 1 tennis centre, already outsourced (blue)
The Tennis Centre is operated by a Trust and falls outside the scope of this strategy.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
6
Scope of facilities Water
World Plas
MadocChirk
Gwyn Evans
Queen-sway
Clywe-dog
RuabonRhos-nesni
DarlandMorgan
LlywdGrango AWP
Main Pool 33m 25m 25m 20m 20m
Leisure Pool
Learner Pool
Fitness Suite (stations) 40 48 25 24 40 23
Fitness Studio 1 1 1
Health Suite
Sports Halls (courts) 4 1 4 4+1 4 4+1 4 4+1
Café (seats) 43 60
Vending (machines) 7 7 3 5 3 1
Squash Courts 2 2
Gymnastics Hall
Climbing Wall
AWP 3/4 size Mini Mini Full size Full size Full size
MUGA
Grass Pitches
400m Athletics Track
Physio Room
Soft Play Area
Skate park
Council Facil ities Dual Use Facil ities
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
7
• The map illustrates a 2-mile radii
around each of the Wrexham
leisure facilities. This indicates that
Wrexham seems to be
overprovided in terms of the
number of leisure facilities. We
have used a 2-mile radius as 80% of
a facility’s users is typically drawn
from within a 2-mile catchment.
With the exception of Darland, all
dual use facilities’ catchments
overlap with those of the
community use leisure centres.
Facility mapping1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
8
Swimming Pools
Waterworld (25m x 6 lane)
Plas Madoc (20m x 3 lane)
Gwyn Evans (25m x 4 lane)
Chirk (25m x 4 lane)
Clywedog (20m x 4 lane)
Rhosnesni (20m x 4 lane)
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Facility mapping
9
Facilities Mapping
Swimming Pools Mapping
2 mile radius catchment
Blue: community pool
Red: school-based dual use
This indicates that there is
considerable overlap in catchment
between Clywedog, Rhosnesni and
Waterworld in the centre of
Wrexham.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
10
Facilities MappingSwimming pool location – proximity analysis
•This indicates that there are two swimming pools (Clywedog and Rhosnesni within 1.5 miles of
Waterworld and three within 3.6 miles.
•The nearest alternative pool to Plas Madoc is Chirk, 5.1 miles away.
Relative proximity - Wrexham Pools (in miles - quickest driving route)
Waterworld Clywedog Rhosnesni Plas Madoc Chirk Gwyn Evans Mean
Waterworld - 1.5 1.0 8.2 11.1 3.6 5.1Clywedog 1.5 - 2.2 6.3 9.3 3.4 4.5Rhosnesni 1.0 2.2 - 10.0 13.1 3.2 5.9
Plas Madoc 8.2 6.3 10.0 - 5.1 8.4 7.6Chirk 11.1 9.3 13.1 5.1 - 11.4 10.0
Gwyn Evans 3.6 3.4 3.2 8.4 11.4 - 6.0
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
11
FacilitiesObservations and key issues
•On the evidence of the location and mapping analysis it appears that the following facilities are
located within the same catchments and will potentially be competing for the same users:
Swimming pools: Rhosnesni and Clywedog are located circa 1 mile from Waterworld
Health & fitness gyms: Queensway gym and Clywedog gym are both located circa 1 mile
from Waterworld
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
12
Condition surveys•Visual inspections of all 11 leisure facilities were undertaken in the summer 2013. The Architects AFLS&P reviewed Plas
Madoc and Waterworld, whereas the Council’s team focused on the remaining 9 facilities. These inspections highlighted the
current condition of the facilities and identified any works required in the immediate, short, medium and long term timescales.
These were not detailed, intrusive condition surveys and further work should be done to further investigate some of the issues
highlighted in more detail.
•The condition surveys are appended to the Facility Feasibility Report and an overview is detailed within the main body of that
report. In summary, however, the cost of the work identified is £2.86m, the majority of which (£1.7m) is related to Plas Madoc.
•We have estimated that the Council is responsible for 96% of the cost of the maintenance, repairs and replacement,
representing a cost of £2.74m (based on the assumption that the Council is responsible for the structure of the facilities, with
the non-structural responsibilities split on a 50:50 basis with the school). The remaining £0.13m should be payable by the dual
use schools under the terms of the agreements between the Council and the schools.
Immediate 2 years 3-5 years 5 years as % of total
Council's estimated share of costs £337,375 £860,025 £1,440,725 £100,000 £2,738,125 96%
Schools' estimated share of costs £1,375 £23,525 £101,225 £0 £126,125 4%
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
13
Condition surveys• Plas Madoc accounts for the vast majority (at 58%) of the total identified costs. As the analysis later in this report will
confirm, the facility only accounts for 20% of total usage as a proportion of total usage across the portfolio.
• The identified works by facility are set out over the following pages.
Immediate 2 years 3-5 years 5 years1 Plas Madoc 77% 44% 60% 100% 58%2 Waterworld 4% 0% 0% 0% 1%3 Chirk 18% 27% 6% 0% 14%4 Gwyn Evans 0% 1% 1% 0% 1%5 Queensway 0% 8% 10% 0% 8%6 Clywedog 0% 2% 6% 0% 4%7 Ruabon 1% 4% 0% 0% 1%8 Rhosnesni 0% 1% 6% 0% 3%9 Darland 0% 8% 7% 0% 6%10 Morgan Llywd 0% 1% 3% 0% 2%11 Grango 0% 2% 1% 0% 1%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Total £338,750 £883,550 £1,541,950 £100,000 £2,864,250
Condition survey - Cost
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
14
Condition surveys
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Facility Year built Condition Cost Description Cost Description Cost Description Cost Description£20,000 Store roof £15,000 Rooflights £250,000 Hall roof £100,000 MUGA resurface£15,000 Hall store £20,000 Hall floor £300,000 Cladding£95,000 Hall ceiling £250,000 Wet changing £50,000 Bar & café decoration£30,000 Basement (DDA) £80,000 Sauna & steamroom £300,000 Filtration & pipes
£100,000 New lift (DDA) £25,000 Hall wall £25,000 Boilers£260,000 Sub total £390,000 Sub total £925,000 Sub total £100,000 Sub total
£15,000 Roof £tbc Pool tank £0 - £0 -£15,000 Sub total £0 Sub total £0 Sub total £0 Sub total
£1,000 Drainage £100,000 Fencing £100,000 Synthetic turf pitch £0 -£25,000 Pool £10,000 Windows£10,000 Sauna £21,000 Fascias£25,000 Tiling £50,000 Slate roof
£8,000 Roof£20,000 Decoration£32,000 DDA compliance
£61,000 Sub total £241,000 Sub total £100,000 Sub total £0 Sub total£12,000 Roof £5,000 Fascias
£5,000 Decoration£0 Sub total £12,000 Sub total £10,000 Sub total £0 Sub total
Further DDA works may be required but not yet costed
1
2
3
4
Plas Madoc Pool 1979, Dryside 1983
Very poor
Waterworld 1970s (1995 refurb)
Fair
Chirk 1997 (2010 refurb)
Good
Gwyn Evans 1985 (1993 refurb; 2010 extension)
Good
Work requiredImmediate 2 years 3-5 years 5 years
15
Condition surveys
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Facility Year built Condition Cost Description Cost Description Cost Description Cost Description£15,000 Car park £15,000 Stand£10,000 Fencing £115,000 Internal finishes£10,000 Track £25,000 Decoration£10,000 Gym floor £2,000 Stairs£30,000 Roof
£0 Sub total £75,000 Sub total £157,000 Sub total £0 Sub total£0 None £15,000 Fencing £80,000 Wetside tiling
£500 Roof £15,000 Decoration£2,000 Ceiling tiles £150 Deep clean
£0 Sub total £17,500 Sub total £95,150 Sub total £0 Sub total£2,000 Entrance ramp £300 Doors £500 Car park
£20,000 Roof £1,000 5 aside court£250 Cleaning
£11,500 Changing rooms£2,000 Sub total £32,050 Sub total £1,500 Sub total £0 Sub total
£10,000 Pool £300 Doors£60,000 Internal finishes
£1,000 Flooring£25,000 Decoration
£500 Tiling£0 Sub total £10,000 Sub total £86,800 Sub total £0 Sub total
Further DDA works may be required but not yet costed
Ruabon 2003 Good
6
Further DDA works may be required but not yet costed
Further DDA works may be required but not yet costed
8
5
7
Rhosnesni 1972 (2004 refurb)
Good
Queensway Main building 1958; Track 1985, Stand 1992
Good
Clywedog 1971 (2004 refurb)
Fair
Work requiredImmediate 2 years 3-5 years 5 years
16
Condition surveys
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Facility Year built Condition Cost Description Cost Description Cost Description Cost Description£250 Flooring £500 Car park £3,000 Fencing
£6,000 Gym floor £30,000 Roof£50,000 Gym walls £80,000 Internal finishes£10,000 Windows
£6,000 Decoration£250 Sub total £72,500 Sub total £113,000 Sub total £0 Sub total£500 Wall £1,000 Tennis court £1,000 Fascias
£500 Wall £30,000 Roof£3,000 Windows £10,000 Decoration£8,000 Gym floor
£500 Sub total £12,500 Sub total £41,000 Sub total £0 Sub total£20,000 Fencing £2,000 Soffi ts & fascias
£1,000 Flagstones £500 Flooring£10,000 Decoration
£0 Sub total £21,000 Sub total £12,500 Sub total £0 Sub total
£338,750 Immediately £883,550 Within 2 years £1,541,950 Within 3-5 years £100,000 After 5 years
Council's estimated share of costs £337,375 Immediately £860,025 Within 2 years £1,440,725 Within 3-5 years £100,000 After 5 yearsSchools' estimated share of costs £1,375 Immediately £23,525 Within 2 years £101,225 Within 3-5 years £0 After 5 years*assumes Council is responsible for 100% of structure of dual use facilities and 50% of doors, floors etc
required but not yet costed
Further DDA works may be required but not yet costed
Further DDA works may be
9
10
11
Morgan Llywd
Gym 1958; Sports Hall 1971
Fair
FairNot providedGrango
Darland Gym 1958 (1987 refurb); Sports hall 1996
Fair
Work requiredImmediate 2 years 3-5 years 5 years
17
Condition surveysPotential additional costs•We should point out that improvements related to DDA compliance have not been costed in, save for the Plas
Madoc and Chirk facilities, so total costs could be higher than presented here.
•Also, pool-related leaks were identified at Waterworld, but as the void under the pool is inaccessible, it was not
possible to either identify or cost a solution. The Council’s liability of £2.7m is therefore considered to be the
minimum that should be budgeted for.
•Having reviewed the items identified within the condition surveys, we would consider it very unlikely that the
expenditure would lead to any improvement in the net-revenue generating capability of the portfolio.
Emerging recommendations and key issues arising from Condition Surveys•Plas Madoc is considered to have reached the end of its designed life and spending £1.7m on the recommended
work is not considered good value for money.
•Moreover, regardless of the current condition of the facilities, the sheer size of the portfolio necessitates
significant annual investment in terms of maintenance, repair and replacement of assets.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
18
• Waterworld is the County Borough’s most important leisure facility in terms of the level of usage it attracts (almost 400,000
per annum and 35% of the total). Plas Madoc attracts over 220,000, or 20% of the total usage. Together, the 6 dual use
facilities generate almost 100,000 visits, or just under 9% of the total. The dual use centres account for just 8.8% of total
usage, whilst representing 55% of the physical portfolio.
Usage analysis
Venue Visits (2012-13) % of Total
Waterworld 394,106 35.3%Plas Madoc LC 223,047 20.0%
Gwyn Evans 166,275 14.9%
Chirk 138,709 12.4%
Queensway 97,115 8.7%
Clywedog 32,868 2.9%
Ruabon 19,904 1.8%
Morgan Llwyd 17,447 1.6%
Rhosnesni 12,108 1.1%
Darland 11,552 1.0%
Grango 4,199 0.4%
Total Visits 1,117,330 100.0%
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
19
Usage analysisIntroduction•This section details the usage of each of the facilities in terms of health & fitness, swimming and sports halls visits. This
helps understand the relative importance of each facility and the extent of their contribution to delivering the Council’s
leisure services.
Health & Fitness •There are 200 health and fitness stations (e.g. treadmill, bikes, resistance trainers) spread over 6 of the Council’s leisure
facilities.
•Our analysis of the usage of these gyms indicates the following:
1. With the exception of Waterworld, the other gyms are not well-used. The average hourly peak in 2012/13 in
terms of number of users is highest at Waterworld (14 users), representing an average of 35% of operating
capacity (14 users, 40 stations).
2. Plas Madoc attracts an average peak hourly attendance of 9 users, representing just 19% of capacity.
3. Usage at Queensway, Chirk and Gwyn Evans is 17% and below, attracting a peak hourly usage of just 4
people each.
4. Clywedog School gym appears to be almost completely redundant in terms of a community leisure facility. It
attracts very little community usage - the average peak usage per hour is just 1 person per hour.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
20
Usage AnalysisHealth & fitness – peak hourly gym usage
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Peak Time No. people Av.hourly peak Peak Time No. people Av.hourly peak Peak Time No. people Av.hourly peakMondays 5pm 28 15 5pm 21 12 5pm 9 4Tuesdays 5pm 29 16 5pm 25 11 5pm 9 5Wednesdays 5pm 28 16 5pm 22 11 5pm 9 4Thursdays 7am 23 15 5pm 20 9 6pm 11 5Fridays 7am 23 15 5pm 13 9 9am 6 3Saturdays 9am 19 10 10am 10 6 9am 7 3Sundays 9am 20 10 10am 12 6 9am 6 3
14 9 4Number of fitness stations 40 48 22Average hourly peak as % stations 35% 19% 17%
Plas MadocWaterworld Queensway
Peak Time No. people Av.hourly peak Peak Time No. people Av.hourly peak Peak Time No. people Av.hourly peakMondays 6pm 7 4 5pm 8 4 6pm 3 1Tuesdays 7pm 7 4 5pm 11 5 6pm 3 2Wednesdays 6pm 7 4 10am 7 4 6pm 3 2Thursdays 6pm 6 4 9am 7 4 6pm 2 1Fridays 9am 6 4 9am 7 3 6pm 2 1Saturdays 9am 4 3 9am 5 2Sundays 12pm 5 3 10am 6 3
4 4 1Number of fitness stations 25 24 23Average hourly peak as % stations 15% 15% 6%
Chirk Gwyn Evans Clywedog
21
Usage Analysis
Health & Fitness •Whilst the usage at Gwyn Evans and Chirk is low, the facilities do nevertheless serve distinct catchments.
Queensway, and Clywedog however, are located within circa 1 mile of Waterworld and serve the same catchment.
Ideally, the stations at Queensway and Clywedog should be amalgamated with those on the Waterworld site, albeit
the physical constraints at Waterworld currently rules this out as an option (unless a new facility is built).
•Closing the gym would allow further staff reductions to be made at Queensway as it could then be managed
remotely by staff at the new facility (we would suggest a full time team would not be required to manage the
stadium).
•NW Crusaders have said that the Queensway facility would be enhanced by the availability of a team/analysis room.
The gym could therefore be converted to a more appropriate use at very little cost.
•The Children’s Gym (20 fitness stations) could be relocated to a school. Although we have not yet received the usage
data for this facility, it is likely that it would be better utilised located in a more accessible venue.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
22
Usage AnalysisSwimming pool usage
•The number of pool visits per annum across the portfolio appears to have increased by 12% since 2009.•Waterworld accounts for circa 50% of all swimming usage, Plas Madoc c24% and the dual use sites just 4.6%.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Venue Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 3 yr Average %
Waterworld 192,721 192,741 186,189 190,550 50.5%Plas Madoc 87,623 86,967 97,317 90,636 24.0%Gwyn Evans 27,101 45,603 57,289 43,331 11.5%
Chirk 32,859 26,927 47,109 35,632 9.4%
Clywedog 16,431 11,737 14,775 14,314 3.8%
Rhosnesni 5,000 2,372 2,123 3,165 0.8%
Total Visits 361,735 366,347 404,802 377,628 100.0%
23
Usage AnalysisSwimming pool – usage analysis•Whilst pool usage at Waterworld appears to have declined 12% over the past 3 years, a recent survey was
undertaken of the pool users which showed that 40% did not have a valid ticket. Swimming lessons numbers have
grown over the years whilst adult and junior attendances have reduced. Anecdotally and from occasional
complaints from customers, the pool seems to be less accessible due to the pool space taken up by increasing
lessons. Also in 2011 the slides were closed, rapids & bubble pool (the latter since reintroduced as a result of the
use of technology) closed until 4 pm each day Monday to Friday in term time to reduce expenditure. WW used to
offer the widest range of free swimming time of all the facilities. In the last 2 years forced changes have reduced
the free swimming time available and consequently free swimming numbers have reduced substantially when
compared with other sites.
•Plas Madoc appeared to have a particularly good year in 2012/13. The driver for this is not clear, although the
summer weather was bad in 2012 and new lockers were installed improving the changing area.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
24
Usage AnalysisSwimming pool – usage analysis•Rhosnesni pool usage has declined substantially since 2009. During the financial year 2011 - all public swimming
and swimming lessons were stopped as a result of a change in the operation down to one supervisor lone working.
The pool attracts an average of just 40 swimmers per week, or 8 per weekday. These could be accommodated
elsewhere if the pool closed to public use.
•Clywedog benefitted from the transfer of the swimming programmes and some block bookings from Gwyn
Evans. Then with increased bookings and better recording, usage numbers improved in the year to March 2013.
•Chirk – usage has increased significantly (albeit from a low base) since 2009. In 2011/12 the boiler was replaced
and the 2012/13 increase versus the previous year was due to better data capture and recording. The opening of
Oswestry Leisure Centre does not appear to have affected usage., indicating that it attracts a very local catchment.
•Gwyn Evans reopened in January 2009 after a major refurbishment and then gradually over the years improved
programmed activities and more bookings has increased usage figures. Again, a lot of usage had been missed due
to things not being recorded through the booking system properly prior to 2012/13.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
25
Usage AnalysisSwimming pool – programming•Whilst there are six swimming pools
serving the Wrexham population – which
we would maintain would be too many
compared to similar catchments - it is
worthwhile understanding the specific
roles each facility plays in terms of swim
programming.
•Wrexham appears to offer a balanced
programme of swimming across its
portfolio.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
26
Usage AnalysisSwimming pool – programming•The majority of public usage at the dual use
sites is taken up by club hire and classes.
There is no public swimming offered at either
of these facilities. It is worth exploring with
Clywedog whether the primary school
swimming lessons hosted by Plas Madoc could
be accommodated by the school during school
hours. Chirk would also be a good alternative
candidate to host primary school swimming if
Plas Madoc were to close.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
27
Usage AnalysisSwimming pool – Plas Madoc School Usage•Plas Madoc is used by 7 Wrexham primary schools to deliver their swimming programmes. In the event Plas Madoc
is closed, it appears most appropriate for these schools to use their next closest venues, which will be either
Clywedog or Chirk:
School Travel to Plas Madoc Travel to nearest alternative pool Increase in drivetime1 Acrefair 0.7m 1 minute 3.8m 10 minutes (Clywedog) 9 minutes2 Rhosymedre 0.9m 3 minutes 4.1m 9 minutes (Chirk) 6 minutes3 Ruabon St Mary's 1.2m 3 minutes 4.5m 9 minutes (Chirk) 6 minutes4 Maes y Llan 1.4m 4 minutes 4.8m 10 minutes (Chirk) 6 minutes5 Ysgol Hooson 2.4m 8 minutes 4.1m 11 minutes (Clywedog) 3 minutes6 Maes y Mynedd 2.9m 10 minutes 3.8m 10 minutes (Clywedog) 0 minutes7 Pen y Lan 3.3m 8 minutes 6.3m 12 minutes (Chirk) 4 minutes
Average 1.8m 5.3 minutes 4.5m 10.1 minutes 4.9 minutes•The average drivetime to Plas Madoc for these 7 schools is 5.3 minutes (1.8 miles). Moving these schools to
alternative pools will, on average, increase their drivetime by 4.9 minutes (2.7miles, one-way) to 10.1 minutes. This is
not considered an unreasonable increase. We have consulted with each of these schools, details of which are set out
in the Consultation section of this strategy document.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
28
Usage AnalysisSwimming pool – programming•The programmes on which we have based our analysis relate to lane swimming. We have not taken the leisure
pool at Plas Madoc into consideration, only the 3 lane portion of the pool.
•Our analysis shows that Plas Madoc and Waterworld have similar profiles, with around two-thirds of swimming
lane hours set aside for public use.
•There is virtually no club swimming at Plas Madoc
•It indicates that Chirk is an important facility in terms of offering a balanced programme of swimming across the full
spectrum of user categories, serving a local catchment
•Around 10% of Plas Madoc’s programme is for school usage.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
29
Usage AnalysisSports Hall Usage•Wrexham’s supply of accessible sports hall in the County Borough is the equivalent of 32 badminton
courts.
•We have researched the usage of these facilities to assess how busy they were during the 2012/13
financial year.
•Ruabon, Gwyn Evans, Plas Madoc and Clywedog are well-used, with the facilities booked for 60%+ of the
time they are open for public use.
•Darland, Rhosnesni and Chirk sports halls are empty more often than they are used
•Usage at Morgan Llwyd is very low.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
% hours booked Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun
Ruabon 4 courts 66.0% 47% 65% 89% 56% 73% closed closedGwyn Evans 4 courts 65.8% 51% 81% 77% 73% 48% closed closedPlas Madoc 4 courts 65.6% 55% 66% 67% 76% 53% 72% 71%Clywedog 4 courts + gym hall 60.2% 57% 50% 79% 67% 48% closed closedDarland 4 courts 49.2% 37% 48% 44% 48% 69% closed closedRhosnesni 4 courts + gym hall 42.1% 51% 43% 57% 32% 29% closed closedChirk 1 court 41.5% 62% 53% 54% 40% 46% 20% 15%Morgan Llwyd 4 courts + gym hall 23.0% 19% 27% 18% 28% closed closed closed
30
Usage AnalysisSynthetic turf pitch - Grango•The full-sized synthetic turf pitch (STP) at Grango School generated £6,600 in 2012/13, of which the
Council retained 30% (or £1,990) under the terms of the usage agreement with the school (which retains
70% of the income).
•Council income of £1,990 is very low given the Council seems to retain the burden of maintaining the
facility; we would question whether this is a fair split. The Sports Consultancy’s database indicates that a
well-performing full-sized STP should be expected to generate around £100,000 per annum. Grango’s
exposed and relatively remote location prevents it from achieving the usage necessary to generate these
income levels. However, given that an average 5 a-side pitch – which is significantly smaller in area -
typically generates in the region of £40,000 to £50,000, Grango’s performance is considered to be poor.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
31
Usage AnalysisSynthetic turf pitch - Grango•The cost of hiring Grango for an hour is:
Full Pitch: £78.20 (Adult) or £50.05 (Junior) Half Pitch £31.65 (Adult) or £21.10 (Junior)
•We understand that the vast majority of bookings are to hire a half-pitch. Assuming an adult:junior usage
split of 50:50, this suggests an average cost per session of around £26. There were 256 bookings in
2012/13, representing an average of 8 bookings per week in the 8 months it is open for use (Sept to March).
This level of usage is considered to be very low given the lack of competition in the County Borough. We
would suggest making the facility open for bookings during the entire year, extending across April to August
which would allow it to benefit from the attraction of the better weather, as well as higher value summer
camp bookings.
•Whilst the operating performance of the facility appears to suggest it is underutilised, it is the Council’s
only synthetic turf pitch and, as such it serves and identified community need. Moreover, as set out in the
Consultation section within this report, the Welsh FA has identified Grango as a potential location for a
football hub and academy.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
32
Usage AnalysisPlas Madoc usage - general•The postcode analysis of users of Plas Madoc Leisure centre (who visited the facility at least once
during 2012/13) shows the majority of users are based outside of the immediate area.
•This would suggest that the precise location of the facility is not important to the majority of users
and is does not serve an exclusively local catchment.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
33
Facilities StrategyPlas Madoc users
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
34
Usage AnalysisThe Equality Act 2010•The Equality Act 2010 makes provision for the protection of people from discrimination on the
grounds of such protected characteristics as their age, sex and disability. In terms of its policies,
management and programming, the Council’s leisure portfolio is open to all and does not
discriminate. However, the condition surveys highlighted certain areas where the physical
infrastructure at Plas Madoc prevents the facility from offering the same terms and quality of usage
to disabled users, specifically in the changing areas and access between floors (i.e. the lift is not
compliant with the Act).
•In order for the Council to comply with the Act it could either make reasonable adjustments to the
existing building, or ensure that when/if a new facility be built it is designed without these physical
barriers preventing equal treatment for disabled users.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
35
Usage AnalysisObservations and emerging issues•Our analysis of usage of the facilities has highlighted the following:
1. Plas Madoc accounts for 20% of all leisure usage and 24% of swimming visits
2. The health and fitness usage at Waterworld is far better than any of the other facilities. Queensway,
Chirk and Gwyn Evans attracted an average hourly peak of just 4 people during the 2012/13.
Clywedog attracted an average of just 1 person per hour. Whilst Chirk and Gwyn Evans serve specific
local catchments, Queensway and Clywedog do not. We would therefore recommend that the fitness
stations be amalgamated at a bigger gym, ideally Waterworld (albeit we understand the constraints
of the current Waterworld site).
3. Plas Madoc does not exclusively serve a specific local catchment and draws users from a wide area.
The specific location of the facilities provided therein is therefore less of an issue.
4. Rhosnesni pool attracts very few users (an average of just 8 per day). These swimming visits should be
able to be accommodated elsewhere by other pools in the portfolio. The rationale for the Council
continuing to operate the pool is weak.
5. In the event Plas Madoc closes, the primary school swimming lessons could be hosted by both Chirk
and Clywedog, the two nearest alternatives for the 7 primary schools that regularly use Plas Madoc.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
36
Usage AnalysisObservations and emerging issues
6. The sports halls are relatively well used, with the exception of Morgan Llwyd, the reasons for which
are not clear but we would suggest that its close proximity to Rhosnesni (less than 1 mile away) and
Glyndwr University Sports centre (2 miles away) is the overriding factor.
7. The Council should explore the potential to extend the opening period for the Grango into the
summer holidays to drive usage and revenue from summer camps. It is currently very poorly used and
generates less that £2,000 for the Council, despite the Council retaining the responsibility for it
management and maintenance.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
37
Financial Performance
Overview•The net cost to the Council of operating the 11 in-house facilities is £1.8m (2012/13 actual). Plas Madoc and
Waterworld cost a combined £0.9m to operate per year on turnover of £1.85m. Going forward, the cost of operating
Plas Madoc is projected to increase significantly as refurbishment, repairs and replacement of the structure and plant and
machinery is required.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Waterworld Plas Madoc Chirk Gwyn Evans Queensway Clywedog Ruabon Rhosnesni Darland Morgan Llwyd Grango Total
£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £Staffing Costs (810,271) (606,117) (274,210) (260,218) (157,490) (26,139) (61,788) (17,462) (22,632) (15,167) (2,251,492)Utilities (209,070) (175,796) (44,299) (54,368) (23,516) (29,376) (12,810) (16,664) (8,433) (6,115) (580,447)NNDR (83,638) (58,353) (25,402) (33,035) (26,248) 0 0 0 0 (193) (226,870)Premises (43,522) (64,628) (11,081) (10,377) (10,325) (9,560) (10,746) (15,687) 0 (11,766) (187,692)Transport (256) (826) (1,756) (1,047) (308) (203) (357) 0 (137) 0 (4,890)Supplies & services (122,612) (135,671) (49,920) (153,268) (32,244) (13,861) (2,112) (2,633) (2,185) (647) (515,152)Third party payments (36,968) 0 (13,092) (577) (6,250) 215 0 0 (8,055) 0 (64,727)Support services (198,262) (186,223) (118,083) (93,637) (85,359) (20,599) (15,240) (40,820) (13,916) (27,764) (799,902)Total expenditure (1,504,598) (1,227,615) (537,842) (606,526) (341,739) (99,522) (103,053) (93,266) (55,359) (61,653) (4,631,172)
Income 1,173,155 672,953 268,292 413,323 134,776 71,126 50,063 38,045 18,779 14,138 1,990 2,856,639
Net operating cost (331,443) (554,662) (269,550) (193,203) (206,963) (28,396) (52,991) (55,221) (36,580) (47,515) 1,990 (1,774,533)Capital charges (183,813) (162,272) (97,610) (100,080) (963,260) (9,770) 0 (37,838) (34,759) 0 0 (1,589,401)Net cost including capital charges (515,256) (716,934) (367,160) (293,283) (1,170,223) (38,166) (52,991) (93,059) (71,339) (47,515) 1,990 (3,363,934)
38
Key Performance Indicators (2012/13)•The Sports Consultancy maintains an operational database of over 250 UK public leisure facilities
(52.9% of which are Council-run), containing over 500 financial records. We have compared the financial
performance of Wrexham’s facilities against these records, focusing on the following key metrics:
1. Income per visit
2.Subsidy per visit
3.Cost recovery
•The performance of each facility is detailed over the following pages.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Financial Performance
39
Key Performance Indicators (2012/13)•Income per visit
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
• Financial Performance
Facility Income Visits Income per visitUK Database
averageVariance to UK
average Upper Quartile Lower Quartile
1Plas Madoc £672,953
223,047 £3.02 £3.75 (20%) £4.37 £2.67
2Waterworld £1,173,155
394,106 £2.98 £3.75 (21%) £4.37 £2.67
3Gwyn Evans £413,323
166,275 £2.49 £3.75 (34%) £4.37 £2.67
4Chirk £268,292
138,709 £1.93 £3.75 (48%) £4.37 £2.67
5Queensway £134,776
97,115 £1.39 £2.83 (51%) £3.66 £1.43
6Clywedog £71,126
32,868 £2.16 £3.28 (34%) £4.23 £2.48
7Ruabon £50,063
19,904 £2.52 £3.28 (23%) £4.23 £2.48
8Rhosnesni £38,045
12,108 £3.14 £3.28 (4%) £4.23 £2.48
9Darland £18,779
11,552 £1.63 £3.28 (50%) £4.23 £2.48
10Morgan Llwyd £14,138
17,447 £0.81 £3.28 (75%) £4.23 £2.48
40
Key Performance Indicators (2012/13)•Subsidy per visit
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Financial Performance
Facility Subsidy Visits Subsidy per visitUK Database
averageVariance to UK
average Upper Quartile Lower Quartile
1Plas Madoc (£554,662)
223,047 (£2.49) (£1.13) (120%) £0.15 (£2.33)
2Waterworld (£331,443)
394,106 (£0.84) (£1.13) 26% £0.15 (£2.33)
3Gwyn Evans (£193,203)
166,275 (£1.16) (£1.13) (3%) £0.15 (£2.33)
4Chirk (£269,550)
138,709 (£1.94) (£1.13) (72%) £0.15 (£2.33)
5Queensway (£206,963)
97,115 (£2.13) (£1.96) (9%) (£0.88) (£2.64)
6Clywedog (£28,396)
32,868 (£0.86) (£3.05) 72% (£1.24) (£3.79)
7Ruabon (£52,991)
19,904 (£2.66) (£3.05) 13% (£1.24) (£3.79)
8Rhosnesni (£55,221)
12,108 (£4.56) (£3.05) (50%) (£1.24) (£3.79)
9Darland (£36,580)
11,552 (£3.17) (£3.05) (4%) (£1.24) (£3.79)
10Morgan Llwyd (£47,515)
17,447 (£2.72) (£3.05) 11% (£1.24) (£3.79)
41
Wrexham Leisure Centres Financial Key Performance Indicators•% cost recovery
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Financial Performance
% cost recovery Database average Variance to average1Plas Madoc 55% 83% (28%)2Waterworld 78% 83% (5%)3Gwyn Evans 68% 83% (15%)4Chirk 50% 83% (33%)5Queensway 39% 68% (29%)6Clywedog 71% 54% 17%7Ruabon 49% 54% (6%)8Rhosnesni 41% 54% (14%)9Darland 34% 54% (20%)
10Morgan Llwyd 23% 54% (31%)
42
Wrexham Leisure Centres Financial Key Performance Indicators•The entire portfolio is generally underperforming across the range of KPIs
•The income per visit generated by both Plas Madoc and Waterworld is circa 20% below the UK
average generated by wet and dry centres
•The income per visit generated by all of Wrexham’s leisure facilities is below the UK average
•The income per visit generated by the dual use centres is up to 75% worse than the average dual use
centre performance
•The subsidy per visit at Plas Madoc is 1.2x higher than the UK average (£2.49 v £1.13).
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Financial Performance
43
Observations and emerging issues•There is no prospect of Plas Madoc’s operating or financial performance improving. Indeed, as the
building ages, the maintenance costs are likely to increase and the financial burden of operating the facility
will be exacerbated.
•Waterworld’s performance is severely impaired by the physical constraints of the facility. The size of the
fitness gym is a limiting factor in maximising income generation. This cannot be extended beyond 40
stations , although the market analysis indicates that there is significant latent demand to justify a gym of a
significant scale (120 stations).
• The dual use centres are underperforming and remain a financial burden to the Council. They account for
8.8% of total visits but only 6.8% of income, and 12.3% of subsidy. The cost to the Council of the dual use
centres is almost £220,000 per year.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Financial Performance
44
Observations and emerging issues•In TSC’s opinion, one of the key reasons why the individual performance of each facility is so poor is
because the portfolio is too large and the usage and income generation are spread too thinly. At almost
£2m per year, the cost of operating the portfolio is considered to be completely unsustainable.
•Continuing to retain such a large portfolio of buildings will mean that the Council retains the associated
risks and responsibilities regarding maintenance of these assets. The cost of maintenance is likely to
continue to increase as these facilities age.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Financial Performance
45
Supply and Demand
Introduction
•Detailed demand and supply analysis for Wrexham has been completed for swimming pools and
sports halls using Sport Wales’ Facility Planning Model (FPM). This provides a robust, industry
recognised, assessment of supply and demand for these facility types.
•In addition to the findings of the FPM, an assessment of supply and demand for health and fitness
facilities was commissioned from specialist market research company (The Leisure Database Company).
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
46
Supply and Demand
The key findings from the supply and demand analysis are:
Swimming Pools
1.Permanent closure of Plas Madoc has a negative impact in the overall supply but most users will
be displaced to other facilities in the County Borough without significant impact on accessibility for
those currently using Plas Madoc, apart perhaps from those accessing via walking. There are
alternative local pools, most notably Chirk and Oswestry (North Shropshire), which could
accommodate increased use, as well as the potential replacement for Waterworld. Therefore, the
impact of the closure of Plas Madoc can be mitigated through access to alternative facilities and
the replacement of Waterworld, particularly if a larger, preferable, 8-lane pool option is chosen.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
47
Supply and Demand
Sports Halls
2.Currently the area around Plas Madoc is very well provided for, in terms of sports halls, arguably
overprovided for. The closure of Plas Madoc has a negative impact in the overall supply for the
County Borough; however most users will be displaced to other facilities in the County Borough,
without significant impact on accessibility for those currently using Plas Madoc. By closing Plas Madoc
the area becomes similar to the rest of Wrexham. In essence, there are alternative local halls, which
could accommodate displaced users from Plas Madoc. Therefore, the impact of the closure of Plas
Madoc is not significant.
3.In central Wrexham, however, the analysis identified a deficit of provision of 8-12 badminton
courts. This is relevant to take into consideration when deciding on the future of the facilities in the
town centre, particularly the dual use sites.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
48
Supply and Demand
Health & Fitness stations
4.The data from The Leisure Database indicates that is greater scope for additional fitness provision
in the town centre compared to the Plas Madoc area. If Plas Madoc leisure centre were to be rebuilt
on its existing site, we would recommend that an additional provision of just 4 extras stations be
provided, i.e. 54 compared to the current level of 48 stations. However, if a new facility were to be
built adjacent to the current Waterworld facility then the market would justify and additional 80
stations (120 compared to the current 40 stations at the existing Waterworld gym). The size of the
gym is relevant because it is a key revenue generator; investment in the town centre will attract
higher user numbers than Plas Madoc and therefore generate greater revenue.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
49
Consultation
IntroductionWe have contacted over 60 organisations with a vested interested in the
Wrexham portfolio, including clubs, user groups, schools and national
governing bodies, in order to better understand the leisure portfolio from a
wider perspective. We had a good response to our approaches, receiving
written responses from 10 strategic stakeholders and 17 user groups. We have
also consulted with all 5 of the dual use schools, 4 of which have provided
written responses to our questions. The respondees are listed here.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
User Groups, Clubs & Schools1 Wrexham Swimming Club2 Ruabon Tae Kwon Do3 Penley Penguins SC4 WXM Water Polo Club5 Brymbo Wrexham Squash Club6 Wrexham Athletics Club 7 Matrix Taekwondo8 North Wales Crusaders Rugby League9 Wrexham Hockey Club10 Wrexham Roller Hockey Club11 Splash & Rhyme12 Llangollen Canoe Club13 Maes y Llan School14 Maes y Mynydd School15 Rhosymedre School16 Ruabon St Mary's School17 Olympic Wrexham Gymnastics Club18 Ruabon School19 Rhosnesni School20 Darland School21 Morgan Llwyd School
Strategic Stakeholders1 Football Association Wales Trust2 Hockey Wales3 Welsh Rugby Union4 Swim Wales5 Cricket Wales6 Badminton Wales7 Sport Wales8 Disability Wales9 Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham10 Betsi Cadwalader University Health Board
50
Consultation – Strategic Stakeholders
Swim Wales•Wrexham’s pool provision plays a vital role in delivering Swim Wales strategy in the locality. With no
accessible private / alternate provision we are entirely reliant on Local Authority partners to help deliver
National Swim Wales and Sport Wales initiatives. Swim Wales has affiliated Swimming clubs operating from
the facilities:
a) Wrexham Swimming Club – operates primarily from Waterworld, (plus Gwyn Evans and Clywedog).
b) Wrexham Aquatics Club –primarily water polo (Waterworld)
c) Chirk Swimming Club – operating from Chirk Leisure Centre
•There are three primary functions that the facilities provide:
a) Performance Swimming
b) Pathway opportunities (water polo and other aquatics activities)
c) Delivery of the Welsh Learn to Swim Programme – Aqua Passport
•Swim Wales considers the provision, quality and management of facilities in Wrexham to be good and in
challenging financial circumstances this is far better than some other providers elsewhere in Wales.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
51
Consultation – Strategic Stakeholders
Swim Wales (cont’d)•They suggest that Plas Madoc and Waterworld may be heading towards the back end of their lifespan.
•Their main concern is accessibility of the water space in Wrexham.
•They have long sought a way to work with the Authority and Wrexham Swimming club to improve their access to pool time
to enable them to reach Swim Wales’ ‘Performance Club’ status.
•Performance Club criteria requires 20 hours of pool time access per week for the top squad, and appropriate progressions
to that squad from learn to Swim. This is not being met in Wrexham.
•As Wrexham is the third largest population centre after Cardiff and Swansea it is imperative for Swim Wales to have a fully
functioning performance centre (utilising the existing Wrexham Swimming Club). Other areas including Newport, Bridgend,
Pembrokeshire and Conwy have managed this without vastly different facilities.
•Swim Wales would like to see a 50m pool in Wrexham (within the main conurbation replacing Waterworld would be the
logical choice). This would be of a flexible design allowing performance swimming, lessons and public at any one time, and
this could provide the function of several of the other pools while being more economical and more versatile.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
52
Consultation – Strategic StakeholdersSwim Wales (cont’d)•They are aware that Glyndwr University are also keen to add a pool to their portfolio under the right circumstances
and would strongly advise a partnership to run such a facility.
•In the more immediate term their absolute priority is to secure the correct pool time to ensure Wrexham is the
performance club the area requires.
•Swim Wales suggests that the swimming provision is spread too thinly across the Wrexham sites. Newport for example
within the main urban area operate just two large facilities one orientated towards ‘serious’ swimming including
performance, and the other a freeform leisure pool. In recent years Merthyr is an example of another Authority that has
consolidated its provision on a smaller number of sites but with larger more versatile facilities.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
53
Consultation – Strategic Stakeholders
Sport Wales•Provides £450,000 of funding per annum to Wrexham CBC for the delivery of various sporting programmes
including Free Swimming (£148k), Dragon Sport and 5x60 (£278k) to ensure a range of extra-curricular opportunities
are provided to young people.
•This is dependent on locally accessible sports facilities.
Cricket Wales•Ruabon School fulfils a crucial role for Cricket Wales as the facility to deliver coach education, regional
representative cricket, indoor leagues and club coaching in North West Wales. It is the only facility of its kind in the
region and is essential for the development of cricket. The facility is fit for purpose and with a well-managed
maintenance regime (a priority) will continue to provide an excellent facility in the future.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
54
Consultation – Strategic Stakeholders
Badminton Wales•Darland School and Gwyn Evans seem to be the most important facilities in the delivery of badminton. Plas Madoc is
used for badminton for just 45 minutes per week and Rhosnesni just 50 minutes. Badminton is in demand in Wrexham
but not considered “healthy” by the NGB (Badminton Wales).
Hockey Wales, Welsh Football Trust and Welsh Rugby Union •These three National Governing Bodies submitted a joint response to the consultation which highlighted their focus on
delivering an all-Wales plan for artificial turf pitches (ATPs). It recommends the designation of a nationally significant (i.e.
2 pitch) hockey centre at Glyndwr University. This would allow for the conversion of other ATPs in the County Borough as
hubs for football (40-45mm grass length 3rd generation), football/hockey (40mm 3G with shockpad) and football/rugby
(60mm 3G with shockpad). Their spatial plans for football identifies Ysgol y Grango as a potential football hub and
academy in partnership with Cefn Druids AFC (a priority club for FAW). The ATP strategy for Wrexham would be
completed by the creation of a rugby hub in conjunction with Wrexham RFC.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
55
Consultation – Strategic Stakeholders
Hockey Wales, Welsh Football Trust and Welsh Rugby Union (cont’d)•The strategy notes the existence of the ATPs at Chirk (small ATP), Clywedog School (full size), Morgan Llwyd School (full
size), and Rhosnesni but makes no specific recommendations for their future use or development as sports hubs.
However, it does stress that all high schools in Wales should have access to at least one ATP and in this respect,
Wrexham is serving an important sporting need for these schools.
Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham (AVOW)•Considers there to be a good mix of facilities which are well-established across the County Borough. The Healthy Eating
and Being More Active Outcome Group (HEBMAOG) considers that the range of facilities offers opportunities for all
their client groups (including young people, pregnant women, deprived communities and disabled people).
NHS team (Caia Park)•Queensway and Waterworld are considered pivotal to the delivery of programmes by the NHS Health Team (Caia Park)
to increase physical activity levels and help reduce obesity. Obesity rates are high in Wrexham (at 58%) and activity
levels are low (33%). The NHS team considers the accessibility of these facilities to be very good. The scope of facilities is
considered good, but the facilities generally need updating.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
56
Consultation – Strategic Stakeholders
Disability Sport Wales•Disability Sport Wales employs a development officer in the Wrexham County Borough. Their role is to ensure
appropriate access for disabled people to sports facilities as part of its community programme. In addition, they
run a “virtual” academy and performance programme which formalises the process of identifying and
developing elite disabled athletes. It is considered essential that athletes are given access to high quality local
sporting facilities.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
57
Consultation – Plas Madoc Specific
Introduction•Given the sensitivity of the recommended option to close Plas Madoc Leisure Centre, we have ensured the
views of the main user groups of that facility have been consulted to understand: the extent of their usage,
why they choose to use Plas Madoc over the other options (if any), and how the users of each group travel to
and from the facility. Those consultees specific to Plas Madoc are:
1. Wrexham Roller Hockey Club
2. Splash & Rhyme
3. Llangollen Canoe Club
4. Maes y Llan School
5. Maes y Mynydd School
6. Rhosymedre School
7. Ruabon St Mary’s School
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
58
Consultation – Plas Madoc SpecificKey messages•Wrexham Roller Hockey Club and GBHI North Wales use Plas Madoc exclusively. Very few leisure centre allow roller
hockey to be played due to the potential damage to the sports hall flooring. They use the sports hall once a week for
club days and once a fortnight for League games. Plas Madoc hosts the league games for ALL clubs in North Wales. The
charge for an entire day’s hire at the weekend is just £100. They would be happy to relocate if an alternative home
could be found (Deeside Leisure Centre was their former home prior to its refurbishment). Whilst not made specifically
clear, we can assume that the majority of the users travel to the facility by car as it attracts clubs from all over North
Wales. Some of the local club’s users walk from the neighbouring Plas Madoc estate.
•The Splash & Rhyme group uses Plas Madoc just once a week for an hour. They originally approached Waterworld to
host the sessions so we can assume that the specific location is not important.
•Llangollen Canoe Club uses the pool once a week due to its wave machine, shallow entry points and its central
location. The majority of its members travel to the facility by car. Changing facilities are considered to be poor and the
car park is poorly lit.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
59
Consultation – Plas Madoc Specific
Key messages•Seven local primary schools use Plas Madoc once a week for swimming lessons.
Schools would use another facility if it was located close enough
The schools use a bus to travel to the facility, with the exception of Rhosymedre who walk. Travel time is
key.
Only Rhosymedre considers Plas Madoc’s specific location to be critically important to its continued usage
•We have researched the likely alternative locations to host the schools’ lesson programmes. If the schools switched to
Clywedog School or Chirk Leisure Centre, their each-way travel time would increase by an average of just 5 minutes.
Summary•It seems that the cost and convenience of Plas Madoc are more important considerations than its specific location.
There are other options available for the schools to use if they would consider an average 5 minute extension to their
journey time.
•The roller hockey clubs are likely to be affected most by the closure of Plas Madoc and would appreciate help from the
Council to relocate; this was not forthcoming when Deeside Leisure Centre was no longer an option.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
60
Consultation – User Groups
Overview•Users are not precious about what facility they use and would be prepared to use a different/new facility if
necessary
•The majority of users travel to facilities by car
•No real issues were raised regarding the quality of facilities, with the exception of Plas Madoc.
•The users all seem to enjoy a good relationship with the Council’s leisure staff.
•Olympic Wrexham Gymnastics Club is located at Queensway. Although they do share an entrance, they do
not share any of the other facilities and can therefore be considered to be self-contained. This is an important
when considering the option of closing the fitness gym at Waterworld and relocating the staff; they are not
required to support the gymnastics club.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
61
Consultation – Dual Use Schools
Dual Use Schools•The Council operates 5 dual use leisure centres (excluding Grango’s AWP), two of which have swimming
pools. We have received written responses to our consultation questions from all except Clywedog School.
Given the potential option for the Council to withdraw from operating the facilities it is crucially important to
understand the schools’ appetites to operate the facilities directly and take on the associated operating and
financial risks. If there is no willingness for the schools to operate for the benefit of the community use –
regardless of the available income generation – then this is likely to put pressure on the remaining portfolio.
•There remains the option, of course, to retain the dual use schools and convert to a staffless operation,
similar to Darland. We would consider that this is not an option for the pools due to health and safety
concerns.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
62
Consultation – Dual Use Schools
Dual Use Schools•Rhosnesni School warns that it would be highly likely that they would close the pool. However, they may
consider offering access to the dry facilities during weekdays.
•Ruabon School would be interested in the option of operating the facilities themselves for the benefit of the
community, particularly if the access systems could be converted to allow a staffless operation. They are
concerned, however, about the cost of maintenance of the facility.
•Morgan Llwyd do not appear to have considered the opportunity in any detail, other than making clear that
if the operation was loss making (as the Council’s financial reports indicate) then they would not consider
operating the facility for community use.
•Darland School considers the staffless operation implemented at their site to be far from ideal due to the
associated problems with security, cleaning and user management. They do, however, see an opportunity to
pass the responsibility for managing the facility to a local voluntary group such as the PTA or the Gresford
Trust.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
63
Consultation – Dual Use Schools
Summary and Key Issues•It seems likely that the pools will close if the Council withdraws its operational and financial support. The
schools appear to have no incentive to finance a loss making facility.
•The impact of Rhosnesni closing will be relatively immaterial as it only accommodates an average of 8
swimmers per day. Clywedog pool, however, is significantly busier and could be used as a ideal alternative
venue for primary school swimming. The case for the Council continuing to support it is therefore far
stronger
•However, the schools do see the opportunity to generate income from the dry side facilities and it is
therefore likely that these remain open to the public even if the Council withdraws its support. The supply
and demand analysis we have undertaken suggests that the deficit in sports hall provision will provide an
opportunity for greater usage of the remaining sports halls and therefore higher revenue generation.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
64
New Facility Feasibility•The Sports Consultancy’s New Facility Feasibility (which should be read in conjunction with this
report) makes the following recommendations:
1. Demolition of Plas Madoc and Waterworld, to be replaced by a single facility on the site of
the Crown Buildings in the town centre.
2. The scope of facilities to comprise:
a) 8-lane 25-metre County standard swimming pool
b) Spectator seating for 250 people
c) Learner pool
d) Leisure water area (one flume feature)
e) 120-station health and fitness area
f) 2 fitness studios (30-person capacity plus storage)
3. Capital cost of £11.9m (including fees, contingencies and demolition)
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
65
New Facility Feasibility
•Assuming the operation of the facility is outsourced, it is likely to deliver revenue savings of
£946,014 compared to 2012/13 actual financial performance, representing a potential to leverage
prudential borrowing of up to £13.2m.
•A likely necessary borrowing requirement of £11.9m would mean that the facility would be fully
funded, and deliver the Council savings of £96,443 per annum after financing costs.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
£1Close Plas Madoc £554,6622Close Waterworld £331,4433Build, finance and operate new leisure centre (£789,662)
Net cost improvement £96,443
66
Summary and Recommendations•The research and analysis undertaken as part of the development of this Leisure
Facility Strategy has identified opportunities to significantly improve the portfolio
whilst delivering a brand new and fit-for purpose leisure centre and securing
sustainable operational savings.
•The recommendations have been made taking into consideration:
The condition of the facilities
Usage
Financial performance
Consultation with user groups and stakeholders
The supply of and demand for leisure facilities in the Wrexham area
The likely benefits of building and operating a new leisure centre to replace
existing facilities.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
67
Summary and Recommendations•Our recommendations are:
1. Hand back the dual use facilities, to the schools with the exception of Clywedog swimming pool (which
could play a role in hosting primary school lessons, club swimming and classes. The risk of the schools
deciding to close the dry facilities is considered to be very low in view of the income generation
opportunities available to help subsidise the schools. This is an important consideration as there is an
identified deficit of sports halls in the town centre. The Council has a role to play in helping the schools to
understand this potential and provide more information regarding the likely associated operating costs to
help ensure these sports halls remain open to the public. Rhosnesni pool is likely to close but as this only
serves an average of 8 people per day, these can be comfortably relocated elsewhere.
2. Close Plas Madoc leisure centre – it has come to the end of its designed life and requires £1.7m of
maintenance, as identified in the condition surveys.
3. Close Waterworld and build a new leisure centre on the adjacent Crown Buildings site. Waterworld is
reaching the end of its design life and it constrained by its physical infrastructure to maximise income.
4. Close the Queensway and Clywedog gyms and relocate the fitness provision to the new leisure centre.
Clywedog pool and Queensway stadium should be retained by the Council.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
68
Summary and Recommendations•Adopting these recommendations could secure £399,330 of
annual operational savings and deliver a fully funded new
leisure facility to serve the population, helping the Council
‘make Wrexham a better place for people to live, work, learn
and play in’. These savings are summarised in the table
opposite. Note that these include support services of
c£300,000 which the Council will be able to realise at central
office level.
•In terms of timescales, savings of £857,549 should be
achievable in the year to March 2015 by closing or handing
back those facilities identified in the table. Waterworld
should be retained until construction of the new leisure
facility has been completed and it is operational.
•It will also help the Council avoid over £2m of essential
maintenance work over the next 5 years.
1.Our brief 2.Facilities 3.Condition Surveys 4.Usage Analysis 5.Financial Performance 6.Supply & Demand 7.Consultation 8. New Facility Feasibility 9. Recommendations
Summary of avoided R&M identified by Condition Surveys £1 Plas Madoc £1,675,0002 Waterworld £15,0003 Rhosnesni £96,8004 Ruabon £35,5505 Morgan Llwyd £54,0006 Darland £185,750
Avoided condition survey works £2,062,100
Summary of annual operating savings available £1 Close Plas Madoc (100% saving versus current operating costs) £554,6622 Close Waterworld (100% saving versus current operating costs) £331,4433 Build, finance and operate new leisure centre (£789,662)4 Hand back Rhosnesni (100% saving) £55,2215 Hand back Ruabon (100% saving) £52,9916 Hand back Morgan Llwyd (100% saving) £47,5157 Hand back Darland (100% saving) £36,5808 Hand back Clywedog gym (25% saving) £7,0998 Close Queensway gym (50% saving) £103,481
Total potential annual savings £399,330
top related