Waterworld not to be replaced
-
Posts
-
I must get a life and stop reading Council reports!!
The report going to Scrutiny next week with the recommendation NOT to replace Waterword has some very interesting issues.
1. Large sums of money are being paid to consultants to give ‘professional’ advice yet there recommendations are being rejected by a Lead member who does not have a Leisure background!
2. In the figures presented there is a variation of nearly £250k to install 120 gym stations depending on whether there is a six or eight lane pool. Surely the cost of equipment and the space required would be the same. How reliable is a report that has questions over £250k !!.
3. The demolition cost for the existing Waterworld is £575,000– why is therea cost surely the developer who may pay a lower cost for the site should be responsible!!
4. The success of Waterworld and reopening of Total Fitness are highlighted as a new risk — why new haven’t the Consultants or Councilor actually been keeping an eye on what has been happening in the County Borough..
5. If the consultants can provide the reports that the Lead Member needs to support his proposal NOT to build a new pool – how long will it be before we see a new team of consultants coming in to produce reports to meet the outcome that has been decided BEFORE consultation.
6. Why is the Bodhyffryd review not including the Guildhall and Library if they have included Coleg Cambria. Why not do a totality review rather than being selective?
7. Why has the report not included that it would be highly unlikely that the Council could take out any prudential borrowing at a time when there are going to be mergers. How could anyone authorize the release of funds to a Council that is time limited!!
Perhaps our couple of Councilors who contribute to the Forum may be able to get answers.Consultants merely present information , decisions should be made by Councillors. When situations change then so do decisions. The idea of knocking down two swimming pools and borrowing £12,000,000 to build a new one was always a bad financial idea.
Interesting document was referenced to in this evening’s Scrutiny Committee. First time we have seen the document and had to be done via a Google search as not too easy to find on Council website.
Worth a read – details on replacement leisure centres and some interesting comments on Total Fitness and Plas Madoc: https://www.wrexham.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/leisure/wrexham_feasibility_study.pdf
For consultants who have been pad such a large sum of money nit to know that SPLASMAGIC is actually heaving and far busier than before Their information in membership and use must be way under — you only need to stand in the cafe to see that.
How can Council Jones not accept that the financial model is never going to happen due to the Council Leader digging his heels in about mergers — why would WG fund an organisation that is nit prepared to even have a dialogue with another potential .
In Wrexham we are going to lose a damn sight more as a result of the attitude of Councilors — it shows that non of them have any business negotiating sense.“The current facilities operate at a revenue deficit of c.£270,126 per annum. Approximately 395,000 visits are made to Waterworld during a typical year.”
from the document Darryl referred too. Atkins , consultants again ?
There is a short fall of revenue that represents less than £1 per visit surely with adjustments to prices and provision of extra revenue streams together with prudent procurement processes this deficit could be overcome.
The idea was to sell off the Waterworld site to generate £1,100,000 income, to put towards the new build that will not now happen. Interesting to note that in other documents demolition of Waterworld was costed at £575,000 so in fact there would have only been £425,000 profit really to put towards a new built !
If the £1.100,000 is on for the Waterworld footprint then please send the potential buyers in my direction — look at land values in Wrexham this is about 45% above other similar size sites. The consultants and Lead Member better put new batteries in their calculator or get more fingers to count on. This is back of a fag packet calculations.
Remember the consultants are a subsidiary of PWC who also have other subsidiaries that run leisure centers.
The truth about Plas Madoc is also now coming out – closure was an essential part of the Council Plan — even though they made it clear in Council meetings that they had not factored in any possible income from PM.Introduction to the Consultants Report
“Issued to
20/01/2015 Final report for client review Tom Pinnington Simon Molden Lawrence Istead
Disclaimer
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for the client’s information and use on the Feasibility Study for the Replacement of Waterworld only. Atkins, The Sports Consultancy and AFLS&P assume no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents
It is not possible for Atkins and The Sports Consultancy to guarantee the fulfilment of any estimates or forecasts contained within this report, although they have been conscientiously prepared on the basis of our research and information made available to us at the time of the study.
Neither Atkins, The Sports Consultancy or AFLS&P nor the authors will be held liable to any party for any direct or indirect losses, financial or otherwise, associated with any contents of this report. We have relied in a number of areas on information provided by the client, and have not undertaken additional independent verification of this information. Where applicable, assumptions have been agreed with the client’s representatives and have been clearly stated.”Looks like three consultants, and no independent verification, based on information from the client ( Wrexham Council ) and agreed assumptions ! Wonder how much all this has cost ?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
